Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Bootle, in the room of Allan Roberts Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Students

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effects of the poll tax and the top-up loans scheme on Scottish students, especially nurse students, of low-income families on university courses.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Most Scottish students in higher education will benefit from the additional resources to be provided by student loans. Loans will also reduce dependence on parents—a particular benefit for low-income families. Full-time higher education students, including those seeking academic qualifications in nursing, are required to pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that there has been a drastic fall in the number of entrants to higher education, especially in the fifth and sixth year? Does he also agree that student nurses and pupil nurses have not only been subjected to the full poll tax but cannot get a job when their training is finished? Will the Minister approach the new supremo—the Minister of State, Department of Employment, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)—and ask him to abolish all poll tax for students?

Mr. Lang: No, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been a massive increase in entry to higher education, which is up by about a fifth since the last Labour Government were in power. Student nurses are now paid about £6,660 compared with £2,660 when the last Government were in power and are therefore much better off. Student nurses, like other nurses and members of the public, are assessed for community charge on the basis of their income.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Why has there been an increase in the number of Scottish students applying to come to the two universities in Northern Ireland this year? Is it because of the higher level of education in Northern Ireland, or is it because there will be no poll tax for Scottish students in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Lang: It certainly would not be the latter since about 25 per cent. of students in Scottish universities have come from outside Scotland. The massive expansion of higher education in Scotland is such that many students are probably beginning to look elsewhere as well.

Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend confirm that student support next year will increase by a massive 25 per cent., probably the largest ever single increase? Can he confirm that that includes an element of £420 interest-free student loan? Will he also confirm that such loans are not repayable until the student is earning 85 per cent of the national average wage? Will he further confirm—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked three questions and that is enough.

Mr. Lang: We have budgeted for substantial expansion in higher education next year. Student loans are a valuable top-up to student income and will be of great advantage to those on low incomes and, indeed, on other levels of income.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that many students find it difficult to manage financially and could be left facing debts and the threat of warrant sales as a result of the poll tax and the falling value of student grants? Does he accept that since the introduction of the poll tax not one warrant sale for poll tax arrears has been authorised by a Labour council? The Labour-controlled Strathclyde council has not held a domestic warrant sale in 12 years, while in the 18 months during which the SNP was part of the administration in Grampian its finance convenor authorised 41 warrant sales. Would not it be sensible to consider whether we really need a method of debt collection that is expensive to operate and deeply resented?

Mr. Lang: Students are liable for only 20 per cent. of the community charge, which takes a proper account of the local services from which they benefit. Under the old rating system, students were not entitled to any kind of special relief. The hon. Gentleman should tell us whether students would be liable to pay 20 per cent. or the full amount of the Labour party's roof tax.

Rail Electrification

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met ScotRail to discuss rail electrification in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My hon. Friend and I discussed electrification and various other topics relating to rail transport when we met the former general manager of ScotRail, Mr. Ellis, arid the former chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, on 31 October last year.

Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, whatever claims are made for the new class 158 trains which are coming into service on the Edinburgh-Glasgow line, there is no escaping the fact that electrification is needed if we are to have the most modern inter-city service in Scotland? Is he aware that the position is becoming urgent because the electrification programme on the Carstairs line comes to an end later this year, so the Government must intervene to ensure that a start is made


on the Edinburgh-Glasgow and Edinburgh-Aberdeen electrification programmes before that scheme is disbanded?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, electrification is essentially a matter for British Rail to ecide. He will share my pleasure that the east coast line is nearing completion and that British Rail has various other forms of major investment in the Edinburgh-Glasgow route, which will no doubt be of great value to his constituents as well as mine who use those commuter services. British Rail is in the best position to judge whether it should be express units or electrification, and whether the necessary investment would be appropriate.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that British Rail is proposing to withdraw one of the two Aberdeen to London sleeper services? That decision has been taken without proper consultation, and the timing of it has been for convenience of handling at Euston and not for the needs of passengers in Aberdeen. That leads many of us to worry about British Rail's commitment to the east coast line, particularly when it is so reluctant to consider the electrification programme seriously.

Mr. Rifkind: I am naturally concerned at what my right hon. Friend has said. I understand that British Rail may be proposing to combine two overnight trains, putting sleeping and sitting passengers together on the one train. I know that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing this matter to protect the interests of his constituents. We shall ascertain from British Rail what it is proposing to do and why it feels that it is appropriate.

Mr. Rifkind: I am naturally concerned at what my right hon. Friend has said. I understand that British Rail may be proposing to combine two overnight trains, putting sleeping and sitting passengers together on the one train. I know that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing this matter to protect the interests of his constituents. We shall ascertain from British Rail what it is proposing to do and why it feels that it is appropriate.

Mr. Wilson: We understand from ScotRail that it is prepared to consider electrification of the Glasgow-Edinburgh line. Will the Scottish Office for once enter with some constructive spirit into the subject of rail services in Scotland, and particularly electrification? Will the Secretary of State use whatever diminished influence he has to get rid of the absurd 8 per cent. per annum investment criteria which deter ScotRail from undertaking schemes which have a social and environmental justification even if they do not have that excessive financial justification? What is the Scottish Office doing about the advent of the channel tunnel and the now imminent prospect of Scotland being further isolated and disadvantaged because electrification and top-level high speed rail services will not extend into Scotland? Is there any Scottish Office strategy on the channel tunnel?

Mr. Rifkind: I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for rail travel, and I am looking forward next Wednesday to declaring open the new bridge over the River Ness, which shows British Rail's continuing commitment to the north of Scotland and to the real requirements of those who live there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of ensuring that British Rail carries out the necessary investment to ensure that Scotland gets the full benefit of the channel tunnel. Not only the Scottish Office but the Government as a whole are anxious to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom north of London share in the benefits that the channel tunnel will provide.

Green Belt

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of green belt exist at present; how many there were 11 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): There are 502,225 acres of green belt in Scotland at present, and in 1979 there were 539,621. The reduction from 1979 is due almost solely to the abolition of the Dundee green belt in 1982.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend say what he is doing to defend the green belt against Scottish Labour local authorities which cannot be trusted with it if they attack it as their English counterparts do? What is the position with playing fields, which are most important recreation facilities?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about playing fields. It may be that some unused playing fields can sensibly be released without detriment to the local authority, but each case must be considered on its merits. We must remain strongly committed to green belts and our policy remains that developments in green belts will be strictly controlled. The Labour-controlled Dundee district agreed with both Tayside regional council and the Angus district council that abandonment of the green belt would not result in any material change in attitude to development in the rural hinterland of Dundee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I were not involved in that decision, but it was not contentious at the time.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister reflect on the way in which certain distinguished multinational companies have held a proverbial pistol at our head, saying that if they do not get a green belt site they will not come to Scotland at all? Will the Minister call in papers from the West Lothian district council and the Lothian region about the history of the welcome Digital factory at Queensferry?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With regard to the green belt, that strong presumption will remain and we shall not be pressured into abandoning it. We shall look carefully at the considerations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned for incoming jobs for Scotland, and I will examine the case that he has mentioned.

Teaching Unions

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met teaching unions in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: Since last July, I have had useful meetings with representatives of all the teacher unions in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: Is not it about time the Minister met the unions to advise them that he intends to withdraw the inane scheme to allow schools to opt out? As no school has put itself forward as a candidate to opt out, is it not about time that he consigned the scheme, along with all the other nonsense relating to schools, to the bin?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's presumption is incorrect. The Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 enables schools to opt out if they wish to do so. That


is a right to which parents are entitled, and I have no doubt that it is a right which school boards and parents will be considering in increasing numbers. It is a welcome option.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sweetly ironic that the Labour-controlled Strathclyde regional council is campaigning for re-election on the Government's school boards policy when the Scottish Labour party opposes them? Does my hon. Friend agree that opportunists are at work?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition said that school boards were not wanted and not needed, but 80 per cent. of all schools in Scotland have boards, including 90 per cent. of all secondary schools. It is plain that the boards are widely welcomed by parents and that they have an important role to play in improving the quality of Scottish education.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister have any intention of meeting the Educational Institute of Scotland to discuss, especially, class sizes in primary schools?

Mr. Lang: I have no plans at present to do so. I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that class sizes have been falling steadily in recent years. Pupil-teacher ratios have also been improving steadily in recent years, and I hope that that will continue.

Mr. Worthington: Pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes have been improving because Labour local authorities have defied the Government's wishes. In 1989–90, regional councils spent £120 million more than they were told to spend by the Government. Will the Government tell local authorities what they should have cut? Should it have been nursery schools, one in nine teachers, further education, or making building standards even worse? Will the Minister be explicit about what Labour local authorities were overspending on?

Mr. Lang: The reason why class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios have improved in recent years is the substantially increased funding per pupil as a result of the Government's management of the economy and funding of local authorities. As for local authorities defying the Government, the hon. Gentleman and his party should ask themselves how much longer Strathclyde regional council intends to defy the Labour party.

Single European Market

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been commissioned by his Department into the economic consequences for Scotland of the introduction of single European market; and what action has been taken as a result of these findings.

Mr. Lang: The single market committee of the Scottish Economic Council, which I chair, has commissioned and published three booklets this year on aspects of the single European market as it affects Scotland. Further work is currently in hand.

Mr. McFall: Is the Minister aware of the potentially grave consequences of the single European market for Scotland, and not least for the Scotch whisky industry? Is he further aware that unless there is Community agreement on full fiscal harmonisation for alcoholic drinks, and unless intra-EEC duty trade-for-trade is

safeguarded, the Scotch whisky industry will have far more to lose than to gain? Is this another example of the Secretary of State's interest being for the Prime Minister in Scotland rather than for the 16,000 whisky workers?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the substantial improvements in the whisky industry in recent years, which are to some extent the result of the 30 per cent. real terms reduction in duty payable by that industry. That is reflected in the fact that the industry now has exports of £1·5 billion a year, which is a dramatic improvement. Clearly, the industry is doing well.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister accept that before the creation of a single market in 1992 it is absolutely essential that he reconsiders his refusal to create in Scotland rural development areas on a par with the rural development facilities in Wales and the facilities enjoyed by the development commission in northern England? If he does not do that will not Britain lose out on European funding as well as Government funding after 1992?

Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of our substantial success in obtaining development funding from the European Community—some £800 million in the past decade. In addition, we have made bids under RENAVAL and RECHAR to enable certain parts of Scotland to be eligible for further funding. We are certainly representing the interests of all the relevant parts of Scotland.

Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish steel industry will be even more vulnerable after 1992 unless it obtains the desperately needed investment in its plants? Is he further aware of the information from the steel union conference in Aberdeen this week that imported steel is already replacing what ought to be produced from Scottish plants? Why has the Minister or the Secretary of State still not met the chairman of British Steel? Why are they idle spectators when decisions are being made which will affect the long-term future of the industry?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be meeting the chairman of British Steel. We are all very keen to ensure that the Scottish steel industry continues to prosper. However, investment decisions must be a commercial matter for British Steel. They will be taken on the best competitive advice and information available to British Steel.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep concern in the supply side of the Scottish offshore industry—contractors and others—about the procure-ment directives of the European Commission? What is he doing to ensure that the interests of that very important section of Scottish industry are properly represented?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend knows that we resisted the implementation of that directive, but it was decided by majority rule. We are keeping in close touch with developments. I well understand my right hon. Friend's concern.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions his Department is having with regard to the implementation of alterations in procedures relating to the poll tax in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: I keep all aspects of the community charge arrangements under review and I would be prepared to make changes if they were required.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State have a little pity for the two dunderheads on the Opposition Benches who cannot give answers about the roof tax—[Interruption.] Let no Labour Member—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be addressed through me.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State tell us what role he is playing in the Cabinet committee? If he is not playing any role, will he get into the ministerial limousine, shut his colleagues in it, and go and tell the grocer's daughter that the tills are empty, the books are not balancing and the poll tax should be scrapped?

Mr. Rifkind: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's repugnance at the proposal of his former colleagues in the Labour party for a roof tax because the hon. Gentleman's views appear to be shared by 85 per cent. of Labour voters in Scotland who, according to the recent opinion poll in The Scotsman, reject the roof tax as a means of raising local government finance. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should reflect on the fact that the debate in Scotland over the past few weeks has shown that while no system of local government taxation is popular, the roof tax proposed by the Labour party is the most unpopular system yet put forward by any party.

Sir Hector Monro: If my right hon. and learned Friend were contemplating any alteration, surely he would not change the position whereby a widow living in her own home pays only one community charge in contrast with Labour's roof tax, under which she might well be paying double. Would not that be intolerable and unfair on elderly folk, particularly pensioners?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. As under the old rating system, so under Labour's roof tax, if an elderly pensioner is unfortunate enough to be bereaved the tax is not changed by one penny, whereas one of the advantages of the community charge or the poll tax is that a widow or widower immediately sees the tax burden reduced by half. How can the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) claim that his roof tax is a fair system of taxation when it penalises pensioners in that way?

Mr. McAllion: At the last Scottish Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), told us that he believed that the poll tax was working well in Scotland, so why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to join a Cabinet committee set up to change the poll tax? Does more than a year of poll tax agony in Scotland count for so much less with the Government than under a month of poll tax agony in England and Wales?

Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, our experience in Scotland has shown that local authorities are becoming increasingly accountable to their electorate. When I made that point at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference I was interested to hear a senior Labour councillor inform me that community charge increases this year were only at the rate of inflation in Scotland because there were local elections this year—it had nothing to do

with accountability. That is exactly the point, and that is why the community charge is fairer and more acceptable than the old rating system or the Labour party's roof tax.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that under present procedures Conservative-controlled Eastwood district council has reduced its poll tax by 30 per cent? He may also be aware that a recent opinion poll in Eastwood showed that more than 90 per cent. of Eastwood residents supported the Keep Eastwood out of Glasgow campaign, to which I am parliamentary adviser. Will he urgently consider a change of procedure in relation to those Scottish National party councillors who refuse to pay the poll tax but put in expenses claims? Is not it hypocrisy and an outrage that councillor Gordon Murray of Cumbernauld district council has put in an expenses claim for £20,000—a huge burden on poll tax payers—but refuses to pay his own poll tax?

Mr. Rifkind: It is typical of nationalist councillors to encourage the rest of the population to disobey the law while claiming expenses which have to be met by those paying the community charge.

Mr. Maxton: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in opinion polls in Eastwood, will he confirm that a recent opinion poll in Eastwood district showed that whereas last year 70 per cent. of the electorate there were in favour of the poll tax, now only 50 per cent. are in favour of it, and they are those who benefit mostly from the tax? Will the Secretary of State speak for the people of Scotland for a change and make it clear to the special committee that after one year's experience in Scotland it is clear that no tinkering with the poll tax will get rid of its basic unfairness or end the administrative nightmare and that only abolition will do? If he is so concerned about pensioners in Scotland, why does he not use any money that he gets from the committee to get rid of the minimum 20 per cent. payment which hits the poorest in our society, including many pensioners?

Mr. Rifkind: I, and I think most people, would be more impressed by the 50 per cent. of the people of Eastwood who support the poll tax than by the 10 per cent. of people in Scotland who support Labour's roof tax, which was rejected by the other 90 per cent. With regard to the position of pensioners, at least the Government, unlike the Labour party, do not put forward a system of taxation that we know to be so unfair that the Labour party has to say in advance that pensioners could defer the payment of their roof tax until they died. What better indictment could there be from Labour's own mouth of the iniquities of its proposals and their damaging effect on the elderly in Scotland?

Nuclear Waste Disposal, Dounreay

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received concerning the investigation of the suitability of an underground repository for nuclear waste at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has lodged an appeal against


Highland regional council's decision to refuse planning permission for the drilling of two test boreholes at Dounreay nuclear power development establishment.

Mr. Maclennan: I recognise that any seismic or geological examination of the proposed site will add considerably to our scientific knowledge, but will the Under-Secretary give a categorical undertaking on behalf of the Government that no such proposal will find favour with the Government without the most searching public inquiry, at which any objectors may be properly and fully publicly financed, so that the case can be considered in depth?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: What the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account. The Secretary of State expects to announce his decision shortly. All appeal cases of this nature receive extremely careful consideration and the period taken to consider the appeal is no longer than in other comparable cases. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to announce his decision shortly and will take into account what the hon. Gentleman says.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to bring forward any changes to the poll tax legislation in the present Session.

Mr. Rifkind: I refer to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas).

Mr. Salmond: As a non-payer of the poll tax and one who is proud to he part of the campaign that will sink it, I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer the following question clearly and unambiguously: will the coming changes to the legislation be backdated to cover the full year in which the people of Scotland had to face the full brunt of the unamended poll tax, or will the Secretary of State make a mess of it once again and fail to defend Scotland's interests as he did during the Budget fiasco?

Mr. Rifkind: If there were to be any changes to the community charge, of course we would ensure that they were applied in a way that was fair to Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman continues in his attempt to brand himself as a lawbreaker, he should contemplate the effect that the local income tax, which he supports, would have on his constituents. Does he realise that if a local income tax were introduced for the people of Peterhead and Fraserburgh in his constituency, a husband and wife on average earnings would have to pay £764 and a married couple on average earnings would have to pay more than £1,400? Does he think that his constituents welcome his belief in the local income tax when it would be so damaging to the economy of Fraserburgh, Peterhead and the rest of Banff and Buchan?

Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that he continues to give the impression that he has not yet grasped the fundamental objectionable aspect of the poll tax which is that it bears no relation to ability to pay? When he goes to the Cabinet committee that is reviewing the poll tax, will he explain to the woman in Downing

street that ability to pay is based upon capacity to earn, that mentally and physically handicapped people, the unemployed, those on income support and single parents have no capacity to earn and that we shall judge his review on the basis of whether those people get the 100 per cent. rebate to which they are entitled under a just system?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that ability to pay is an important consideration for those on low incomes. He knows very well that one in three people in Scotland, or indeed in Britain as a whole, do not pay the full community charge because of the rebate system. He knows that people on income support received an increase equivalent to their community charge contribution. The community charge with rebates is therefore a progressive taxation system for all those on low incomes. Any system of rebates that benefits one third of the population can be described in that way.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that local income tax is not a part of the changes that he is contemplating? That would come as a relief o the provost of Perth and Kinross, who believes that a local income tax is not a part of the Scottish national party's policy and who is advising people to pay the community charge. The other SNP provost in Angus is not paying his community charge and is drawing his expenses as a councillor. Does not that clearly show that the SNP, even in a constituency such as mine, cannot speak with one voice? The SNP has different voices when speaking to different people in different places.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Not only are members of the SNP speaking with different voices, but they have not done their homework. As we pointed out yesterday, a single nursing sister could pay more than £1,100 in local income tax, a junior doctor well over £1,000, a school principal over £1,600 and a social worker over £1,100. It is inevitable that any system of local government finance that excludes almost half the population from an obligation to pay puts a heavy burden on those who have to pay. That is why many people on average or modest earnings would find a local income tax crippling to their standard of living.

Mr. Robertson: What is the Tory alternative to the poll tax? When will the Government be able to give us the figures showing what people will have to pay under the new system?

Mr. Rifkind: I am hugely amused by the hon. Gentleman. We all know what the community charge costs and we have explained what local income taxes cost, but the Labour party has remained remarkably coy about what its proposals would cost. Why is the Labour party so reluctant to tell us? Why, in particular, will not the Labour party give the people of Scotland an assurance that, if the Leader of the Opposition would not touch the idea of a roof tax in England with a barge pole, it will not be introduced in Scotland either?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is something fundamentally undemocratic about well-heeled, freeloading scroungers who are elected to public office in this House and elsewhere seeking to get support for a change in the law and not obeying the law—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must withdraw the comment about freeloading scroungers in this House.

Mr. Bennett: May I replace it with the word "spongers", Mr. Speaker? Can you advise me what word I should use?

Mr. Speaker: I am asking the hon. Member to withdraw the phrase "freeloading scroungers".

Mr. Bennett: I withdraw the words "freeloading scroungers" and replace them by referring to those who do not pay their dues to society and who expect others to pay their dues for them.

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rifkind: There is something disreputable about freeloading hon. Members who expect their constituents to pay their lawful taxes but who themselves refuse to do so, thereby imposing an even heavier burden on the rest of the community.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that he does not strengthen his case by descending to appalling misrepresentation?

Mr. Douglas: Oh, my God. The Labour party—

Mr. Dewar: As this famous committee has been set up to take the Government out of their present confusion over the poll tax, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that there will be relief for Scottish poll tax payers by this summer? Can he guarantee that, as Scotland was first—

Mr. Douglas: Dunderheids.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must contain himself.

Mr. Dewar: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as Scotland was first burdened by the poll tax, he has the ability to initiate reforms rather than follow lamely behind others, as has happened so far? Given the Prime Minister's admissions about the fatal flaws in the poll tax, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hold to his unlikely boast earlier this month that this is a tax which works and is here to stay? Before the Secretary of State gets too carried away with the opinion poll to which he has referred several times, will he confirm that 50 per cent. of the sample made it clear that people rejected the poll tax and wanted a property-based assessment, which is the area in which the Labour party is operating? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if he continues to argue the popularity of the poll tax, he will look more and more like a latter-day King Canute?

Mr. Rifkind: The community charge is here to stay. If there are any improvements to the charge, of course they will apply throughout the United Kingdom. It does not surprise me that 30 to 40 per cent. would like to see the rates back. That is exactly the proportion who did not pay a penny of tax under the old rating system. Given his total refusal to give us any details of what the roof tax would cost, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to describe me as a latter-day King Canute, I have to describe him as a latter-day fiddler on the roof.

Roads

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet roads authorities involved in the areas covered by the routes south of Edinburgh road study to discuss the Government's recent announcement on the study's conclusions.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. Scottish Development Department officials will meet the local roads authorities to be involved in the A1 steering group and each relevant authority in respect of the route action plans for the A1 and the A7 south of Hawick, and for various accident remedial programmes.

Mr. Kirkwood: In meetings held in future to discuss routes south of Edinburgh, will the Government bear in mind the anger and frustration felt in the Borders about the inadequacy of the Government's plans for routes south of the Borders? In relation to the A7 south of Hawick, will the Minister confirm that the only schemes now in prospect are all cash limited to a cost of less than £1 million? If that is all that is in prospect, does the Minister accept that the road will never be brought up to a tolerable standard? Will he give an undertaking that there will be a single dual carriageway built to highway-link design standards along the entire length of the A7 between Hawick and Carlisle within the foreseeable future?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in regard to a dual carriageway, because that depends on the amount of traffic usage. In the light of the importance of the A7 to the local economy south of Hawick, we intend to commission the regional councils to develop a programme of improvement. The hon. Gentleman's points will be examined. A bypass for Langholm is already in the trunk road programme. The necessary preparatory work and statutory procedures are planned to be complete by the mid-1990s. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumries (Sir H. Monro) supports that. I should also mention that improvements to the A7 south of Hawick will continue to be made to achieve specific local objectives. They will include accident remedial programmes and smaller improvement schemes where appropriate. So action will be taken.

Mr. Ron Brown: If all roads lead to Westminster, is not it clear that along those routes, regarding the poll tax, we shall see slogans such as "don't pay, don't collect"? It is not the official leadership who turned the "stop it" campaign into a "pay it" campaign who matter; it is the anti-poll tax movement, Committee 100 and others, who rightly said that this is a civil law which should he resisted as a matter of right. Obviously—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question is a bit wide of roads.

Mr. Brown: So people power is important; again it has forced the Prime Minister to think again on her hated tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman had remarkable ingenuity, but I did not think that he would wish the road tax to be increased to pay the community charge.

Sir Hector Monro: May I thank my hon. Friend for his announcement about the road south of Hawick? May I impress upon him the fact that because of the amount of traffic, both from the Borders woollen trade into the north of England and from the tourist industry in the south of Scotland, it is very important that the road is upgraded and particularly that the accident black spots are removed as soon as possible?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall certainly keep those points very much in mind, which is why we are commissioning the regional councils to develop a programme of improvements. I hope that that will help.

Medical Laboratory Services (Glasgow)

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect on patient care of the proposals by Greater Glasgow health board for the reorganisation of its laboratory services with a view to their privatisation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): There are no plans to privatise laboratory services in Glasgow.

Mr. Watson: I noticed that the Minister avoided the part of the question relating to patient care, but is he aware that 23 midwives who will graduate from Glasgow's Eastern college of nursing next month have been told by Greater Glasgow health board that, despite demand for their skills, there is no money to employ them, so they face the dole? What advice can the Minister give to those midwives and to the women of Glasgow who want their services?

Mr. Forsyth: We have enormously expanded the number of places for midwives and nurses in the Health Service. As the training provided by health boards does not guarantee a job with that particular board, my advice to those midwives is to apply for the jobs that are advertised throughout the Health Service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating health boards on having increased the number of midwives and nurses in our Health Service to record levels and on paying them more in real terms than they have ever been paid in the history of the Health Service.

Mr. Allan Stewart: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on wearing the blue rose of Eastwood following his highly successful visit to my constituency? On the point about laboratory services at the Victoria infirmary, can my hon. Friend comment on my alternative proposals, which involve retaining the laboratory services at the Victoria, concentrating National Health Service geriatric provision in the core of the hospital at Mearnskirk and involving the private sector in extending the facilities at Mearnskirk? Is my hon. Friend aware that so far those proposals have received what I would describe as a reasonably fair wind from many people involved?

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seem to recollect your telling the House that it would be most welcome if questions were brief and if answers from Ministers were brief, too. You do not seem to be holding to that directive today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am keeping a careful watch on it, but interventions such as that do not help us to get on.

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has made a constructive suggestion about Greater Glasgow health board's proposals for change to improve patient care within its area—that the Mearnskirk site should be used to improve geriatric provision in the city of Glasgow. That is a constructive proposal and I have asked the health board to consider it seriously. I know that its initial reaction is that it would like to study that proposal closely. I am sure that it will be taken into account along with all the other representations that have followed as part of the consultation process.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sam Galbraith.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the Minister aware that the Leukaemia Research Fund had intended to site a new research unit at Glasgow royal infirmary but that, as a result of the proposed reorganisation of the laboratories in Glasgow, it is no longer planning to do so? Will the Minister therefore please look into the matter to ensure that that world-leading unit comes to Glasgow and to Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman back to the House. I was not aware of the proposal that he mentioned, about having a leukaemia unit at that hospital. I should be very surprised if, as a result of the proposals for the reorganisation of the laboratory services, it were not possible to develop services for patients in Glasgow, because those proposals will save more than £3 million, which will be available for additional patient care, including helping patients who are suffering from leukaemia. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks and shall look into that matter and write to him, stating the position.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assess the popularity or otherwise of the poll tax.

Mr. Rifkind: Public opinion appears to be divided over support for the various forms of local taxation.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State the only person in Scotland who fails to realise that the poll tax is as popular as the bubonic plague and that it is adding insult to injury for the Prime Minister and her lackeys to imply that the Scots are a nation of scroungers because—in, I believe, the right hon. Lady's own words—Scottish poll tax payers are being subsidised by the "marvellously tolerant English"? Now that even the Prime Minister is having second thoughts about the poll tax, will the Government accept the voters' verdict in tomorrow's elections, when the people of Scotland will have a wonderful opportunity to hammer another nail into the poll tax coffin?

Mr. Rifkind: I should be fascinated to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks of his own party's proposals, if he thinks that the poll tax is unpopular. He knows perfectly well that the roof tax commands less support in Scotland than any other system of local taxation. On the level of support for Scottish community charge payers, the hon. Gentleman knows that what my right hon. Friend the


Prime Minister said is factually correct, that Scottish local authorities raise on average 20 per cent. of the revenue that they require from Scottish community charge payers, whereas English local authorities raise an average of 30 per cent., which is one reason why English community charges are significantly higher than those in Scotland. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome that on behalf of his constituents who are having to pay that charge, which the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will not the Secretary of State acknowlege that Scotland is witnessing the unedifying spectacle of the Government and the Labour party together offering the two most unpopular methods of raising taxation for local government? They are making up Mickey Mouse figures to try to discredit local income tax, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows to be fair. Its administrative costs are half those of collecting the poll tax, and it will release funds to be invested in local services. If income tax is a fine method of financing central Government, why not extend it to provide the same buoyancy and accountability in local councils?

Mr. Rifkind: On the central principle, government is financed by both income tax and value added tax, which ensures that all adults pay towards the costs of government. One of the fundamental deficiencies of local income tax is that almost half the electorate would not pay a penny towards the cost of local government. As part of his support for local income tax, has the hon. Gentleman pointed out to his constituents in Gordon that a person on only average earnings would pay a local income tax of £732, so a husband and wife on average earnings in his constituency would pay over £1,400? I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not draw attention to those figures when campaigning for a local income tax in the Grampian region.

Mr. Gow: In the light of the popularity, real or imagined, of the community charge in Scotland, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the community charge will be introduced shortly into Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rifkind: That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have fought the case of Northern Ireland students and the community charge for some time. May I assure the Secretary of State that, despite the news that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has brought from east Belfast, that the poll tax would be popular, it is not popular among the parents of students studying in Scotland who, under the seamless robe of government, are paying the full taxation in Northern Ireland for local government? Will he bear that in mind as he examines changes?

Mr. Rifkind: It is worth remembering that under the old rating system or under the Labour party's roof tax, a student renting a flat would pay the full rates and would not have any automatic deduction. Under the community charge, for the first time, all students have an automatic deduction of 80 per cent. from their bills. That is very much to the advantage of students as a whole.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for which hospitals he has had expressions of interest regarding self-governing trusts; and from whom the request has come in each case.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Expressions of interest have been obtained from four hospitals in Ayr, Forfar and Aberdeen.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that, in spite of the fact that Ayrshire consultants have voted 9:1 against opting out, the minority could still put forward a scheme, his placemen on the health board could agree to that scheme and then, on their advice, he could transfer the ownership of the new south Ayrshire hospital, built at public expense, to a small clique of his own supporters in Ayrshire, against the wishes of the majority of the medical and other staff and against the wishes of the majority of the Ayrshire people? Is not that the biggest steal since the great train robbery?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's description of self-governing status is a travesty. If the proposals for the hospitals in Ayr are taken forward, they will give consultants and staff an opportunity to take part in making decisions at local level. The most important point is that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service. They will not be transferred out of it. The hon. Gentleman may believe that decisions are best taken above the heads of people in the Health Service. He is entitled to his opinion, but many people in the Health Service will not take that view when they consider the opportunity.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend realise that those of us who are not hung up on the doctrine that we are given by the Opposition welcome the fact that at long last there is an interest in developing properly Health Service and hospital facilities in Forfar? Is he aware that general practitioners in Forfar are fully behind the programme?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The proposals for Forfar have come from not the health board or management but local doctors and general practitioners who see the opportunities that self-governing status will provide.

Mr. Ernie Ross: How many?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks how many. All the GPs in Forfar who are involved have put forward those proposals because they see the opportunity for improving patient care. Opposition Members who care more about dogma than about patient interests may care to reflect on that.

Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister accept that I am more concerned with the dogma of democracy? Will he give an undertaking to the House, as he seemed to on the previous occasion when he was questioned on the matter, that many more people will be consulted about opting out than he first thought? If that consultation is widespread, will he stand by the majority verdict of consultants and others working in the Health Service who believe that health services should stay within the NHS and want nothing to do with opting out? Will he stick by the majority verdict?

Mr. Forsyth: The only advice that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that he read the proposals. He uses the term opting out. No hospital will opt out of the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman reads our well-documented proposals on consultation, he will see that there are two stages. The first is expression of interest—the stage that has been reached in Ayr. After that there is the development of proposals or a business plan, if that term is preferred. At that stage there will be full consultation. The procedures that will be followed will ensure that everyone can take account of the proposals and form a judgment on the interests of patient care. That is the way in which the Health Service should be run. It is the appropriate way and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would endorse it.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of local government expenditure will be raised from the community charge payer, the uniform business rate payer, and Government grant; and what were the Government's original estimates if councils had kept to Government spending guidelines.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On the basis of local authorities' budget estimates, 22 per cent. of their expenditure in 1990–91 will be met by community charge payers compared to a Government assumption of 20 per cent., 23·4 per cent. by business rate payers compared to 24 per cent. and 54·6 per cent. from Government grant compared to 56 per cent. Local authority community charge payers should have to contribute on average only 20 per cent. They are contributing 22 per cent. on account of extra local authority spending.

Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the first year of the community charge in Scotland many local authorities made greater provision for bad debts and many other expenses that might have been incurred and increased the community charge accordingly? Is he aware that in the second year they have brought down their expenditure more in line with Government guidelines? Does he further agree that the non-payment campaign in Scotland is the one thing that ensures that community charge payers will have too pay to much this year?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously someone will have to pay the community charge eventually. The effect of non-payment campaigns will be almost certainly to increase the community charge substantially for other

charge payers. My hon. Friend is correct that this year there has been considerably more economy. Some 21 local authorities have either reduced their charges or held them at the same level while another 13 have kept their increases below the rate of inflation. Accordingly, there is increasing evidence that in the second year of the new system in Scotland local accountability is taking effect. In contrast to that, the proportion of the budget of Edinburgh district council that is raised from the community charge is over 40 per cent.—probably the highest in Scotland.

Self-governing Schools

Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools in Scotland have taken steps towards opting out of local authority control.

Mr. Lang: Parents at one school have presented a formal written request calling for a ballot to be held on self-governing status.

Mr. Ewing: After all the parliamentary time spent on the opting-out legislation, all the civil servants' time spent on it and all the people's money spent on it, how does the Minister have the nerve to get up to say that one single school has asked to opt out of the system? Is not that ample evidence of an unrepresentative Government imposing unwanted legislation on an unwilling population? Why does not the Minister take his courage in his hands by joining the rest of the people in Scotland tomorrow and, through the ballot box, telling the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (M r. Forsyth), to get lost and to take his dangerous and daft opting-out legislation with him?

Mr. Lang: The longest journey begins with a single step and I have no doubt that many other schools will be interested in following the example of the one school that has so far applied to be considered. South of the border, where the opting-out provisions have been in place longer, some 36 applications have now been approved and the number of applications for admission to those schools has risen in many cases by as much as 50 per cent.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of questions.

Mr. Speaker: It does not necessarily have to arise out of questions and I shall take it after the applications under Standing Order No. 20.

Export (Iraq)

Sir John Stokes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the action taken by officials of the Customs and Excise department against employees of Walter Somers Ltd., a firm in my constituency, over the export of steel pipes to Iraq.
The matter is specific, because three senior managers and seven employees have been interviewed despite the fact that the Government knew of the export order. I gather from the news tapes that three people have been arrested, but not charged.
The matter is urgent, because grave disquiet has been caused to the employees and their families. Great anxiety is also felt in the firm and throughout Halesowen.
The matter is important, because arbitrary action of this nature by a Government Department is unusual to say the least when the Government knew all along what was happening. Therefore, I hope that honourable and patriotic men are not pilloried to save the Government's face. For those reasons, I request, Mr. Speaker, that the matter be urgently debated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the action taken by Customs and Excise against employes of Walter Somers Limited in his constituency over the alleged Iraqi gun affair.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the decision I must take with regard to Standing Order No. 20 applications is whether to give them precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened with care to what he had to say, but I regret that the matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order; I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on that subject.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am just taking another application under Standing Order No. 20.

Carstairs Hospital

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation that exists within Carstairs state hospital in my constituency.
The matter is urgent because the breakdown in relations between the management and the staff at that hospital has resulted, following a ballot, in the staff giving seven days' notice of their intention to take strike action from Monday next week.
There are 250 or so seriously ill patients in Carstairs state hospital and more than half of them are there under the direction of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If those patients are allowed to go unsupervised and uncared for for any period as a result of strike action, the consequences could be catastrophic; they would make Manchester Strangeways look like a kindergarten.
Therefore, I ask for permission to discuss the matter in the House because the Secretary of State has repeatedly refused to intervene, I am assured. I wrote to him on Monday and have had no response to my request. If the Secretary of State does not intervene before Monday, there will be a serious and catastrophic situation in my constituency and in Scotland. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree to my application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened strike at Carstairs state hospital.
Again, I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I have to give him the same reply as I gave to the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). I regret that his application does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) first.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order arising from the Minister's reply to Question 13. I think that the House may have been misled on an important matter. The Minister decided not to use notes when answering the question and said that four expressions of interest in self-governing status hospitals had been received, but then named only three. He may have omitted to mention the Royal Scottish National hospital in my constituency, which caters for about 700 mentally handicapped patients. As I have previously said, 96 per cent. of the staff are against the management's proposals to opt out of existing arrangements in the National Health Service. It may be that the expression of interest has been withdrawn. If so, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the Minister can be brought back to explain the position?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot bring the Minister back to do that. If the hon. Gentleman tables an emergency written question, he will get an answer tomorrow morning.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to raise this point of order in the presence of the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). I believe that this is a House of Commons point and a genuine point of order. In written questions of 1 May, I asked the Chancellor
what discussions the Customs and Excise has had with the Belgian police about the activities of the late Dr. Bull.
The reply is immaterial to the point of order other than that it ends:
it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters."—[Official Report, 1 May 1990; Vol. 171, c. 479.]
Should not the House of Commons be given some kind of time scale if the Treasury cannot give the information right away? A blanket statement of that sort raises questions for Parliament, and I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, will consider the issues involved.

Mr. David Winnick: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for the Government to answer such matters. I cannot find the Hansard reference given by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Dalyell: It is a written question, column 479. Perhaps the Leader of the House, who is a QC, could look at the issues.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard on the Front Bench.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I said last night, there is widespread concern in the west midlands about matters rightly raised by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). There is deep concern at the way in which those involved in the firm in Halesowen are being treated.
Hon. Members—a number of whom have the honour and privilege of representing constituencies in the west midlands—have sought to find out from the Department of Trade and Industry the exact dates when the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) inquired of the Department involved about the export order to Iraq. If the information were supplied, there would be no need for applications such as that made today or points of order.
People in the west midlands understandably ask the following question: if Parliament is a place in which to ventilate grievances and seek information, how is it that we are being refused the information that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove raised on the Floor of the House? All we want from the Secretary of State are the facts. When did the hon. Member for Bromsgrove seek information? If he did make the point perfectly clear on behalf of the firm, why are those people involved in the firm being treated as they are now?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that because it is a matter for ministerial discretion. [Interruption.] Well, I cannot involve myself in the answers to questions at Question Time.

Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not one readily to raise points of order, but a problem has arisen in Scottish Question Time over the past few months. As you know, the Scottish Office covers practically every major Department of State, which means that Scottish Members have one opportunity every five weeks to raise matters.
You have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that you have to call Members on both sides of the House—I understand that—but the problem has arisen because of the lack of Conservative Members, who sometimes get called two or three times in any one Question Time, while other Members do not get in for months on end.
Today I have discovered that the Lothian health board has deliberately decided to postpone the announcement of a major cuts package until after the local elections tomorrow, to save the skin of the Conservative party. I wanted to raise this matter in Question Time, rather than using a point of order, but because of the problem that I have described, these matters cannot properly be raised as they should be during Question Time, with the result that information is being deliberately withheld from my constituents, and Ministers cannot be held to account for that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help if other hon. Members rise before I have answered the question.
It is peculiar to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that they have their own Question Time. I always call a predominant number of members of the majority party in Scotland, which happens at the moment to be the Opposition, but equally I must have regard to balancing the other side of the argument.
As far as Scottish questions are concerned, Members who are not called one month always receive some priority in the following month—

Mr. Darling: No, they do not.

Mr. Speaker: They are carefully listed on my Order Paper. What is more, the hon. Member for Edinburgh,


Central (Mr. Darling) has the great privilege of being a Front-Bench spokesman, so he has other opportunities as well.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We should remember that this is the unitary Parliament of the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is a Front-Bench spokesman on Home Office matters to do with England and Wales.

Mr. Speaker: I have just said that.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that those of us who attend questions regularly realise the difficult position in which you regularly find yourself because you cannot possibly call everyone who is standing.
Let me make it clear that I speak as a Scot who regularly attends but is frequently not called. I understand why that is, and I make no objection to it, yet Scottish Opposition Members are regularly called more than once—sometimes as often as three times—[interruption.] I can name the Members concerned, if necessary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain whether this is helping the hon. Gentleman: he is one of those who was called twice today. I try to ensure that, except in exceptional cases such as Scottish Question Time, Members are not called more than once. I endeavour to be as even handed as I possibly can be.

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that this will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, who is not exactly a deprived citizen.

Mr. Bill Walker: The point that I am trying to get over—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] My point of order is that hon. Members who have objected—this is not the first time that we have heard such objections about Scottish questions—find that in other situations, because of the massive Conservative majority, Conservative Members often do not get called. I have studied questions over a long period, Mr. Speaker, and I think that you do a remarkable job.

Mr. Speaker: I am absolutely lost for words.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite the fact that three Conservative Members were called twice today, and that I was not called at all, that is not my complaint. You were decent enough to call me twice at the last Scottish Question Time, but may I ask you to tell the House once more that Back Benchers and those who leap up to the Back Benches should ask brief and concise questions? Ministers, especially at Scottish Question Time, which goes out live on both BBC and STV, should offer concise answers.

Mr. Speaker: Let us finish on this note. I readily agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am constantly saying that Members should ask not only brief but single questions, and that Ministers should give brief answers. I remind the House what the Leader of the Opposition said on the day in 1987 when I was re-elected to the Chair. He said that, sadly, no Member of the House can expect to be called on the day he wants at the time he wants and on the subject that he wants.

Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that I am not at all deprived. I regularly attend for Scottish questions. I was not called today, but when I am called occasionally I deem it a privilege. I noted that today four hon. Members who were called were undemocratic enough to say that they would not pay the community charge. Two of them were from the Labour party and the other two were from the Scottish National party. Is there power to dock the parliamentary pay of those hon. Members? Is your consent required for that and, if so, will you give it?

Mr. Speaker: That has absolutely nothing to do with me. Every hon. Member must take responsibility for his own words and actions outside the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that yesterday I raised a point of order about an answer to a parliamentary question that was submitted on 30 March to the Department of the Environment. The answer to the question has been on the desk of the Secretary of State for the Environment since the 19th of last month. However, it is still not available, because it is politically embarrassing for the Government to produce it before election day. The question seeks to find out the proportion of poll tax money, business grant and Government grants relative to local government expenditure. When I asked you, Mr. Speaker, how I could get the answer to that question, you said that by raising it, I had achieved what I wanted. I have not achieved that. Yesterday has gone and there is no sign from the Department of the Environment that an answer will be made available today.

Mr. Speaker: The day is early, and I hope than an answer is on the way.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 18 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Gerald Bowden
Mr. Graham Allen
Mr. Robert G. Hughes

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (London Borough of Southwark) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&amp;c.—[Mr. Fallon"]

London Government

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a London Council and Mayor so that the needs of London may be met and its administration secured on a basis that is fully accountable to the people through the ballot box; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill would restore to the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a Londonwide council and for the first time directly to elect someone to the office of mayor of London.
Tomorrow, the people of London will vote for their new borough councils and, of course, the Labour party confidently expects to do well. All the poll tax fiddling in the world to try to keep Wandsworth and Westminster in Tory clutches will not prevent the Labour party from making sweeping gains throughout the capital. Hon. Members and people outside know that the main reason for Tory defeats will undoubtedly be the poll tax. I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) described the Labour party's 1983 general election manifesto as the longest suicide note in history. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will disagree with that, as I did.
All of us think it accurate to describe the poll tax as the political equivalent of the cyanide capsule. After all, why be annihilated on a shopping list of policies when one will do the trick? The poll tax will undoubtedly be the Tory killer in the local government elections. However, in London, a climate of general dissatisfaction about the state of our city will also be in the minds of numerous voters when they cast their votes.
London is the only capital city in the world that does not have citywide local government. Deep in her bunker, behind those preposterous iron gates at the end of Downing street, the Prime Minister might be able to deceive herself that the abolition of the GLC was a good idea, but to the rest of us, who do not have the benefit of travelling around London in an armoured police convoy, reality tells a different story. From the near-chaos on our congested, rubble-strewn, crime-ravaged streets, to the overcrowded, overpriced and inefficient transport system, London shows all the signs of a city that is unplanned, unco-ordinated and unpleasant.
The abolition of the GLC in 1986 was an act of political vandalism by the Prime Minister. The folly of that politically malevolent decision becomes more evident by the day. In an editorial last month, the Financial Timesspoke of the degeneration of many London streets and the absence of a strategic plan for Britain's capital city. It said that such factors were
surely not unconnected with the disappearance of the GLC.
Similarly, in a recent report, the Henley centre for forecasting warned about London's "dirty and dangerous" reputation.
What the Financial Times and the forecasters observe, so do Members of Parliament, commuters, visitors, residents and anyone who knows and cares about London. No Londonwide service previously run by the GLC is now more efficiently organised. The consequences of the transfer of former GLC services to quangos and

Government Departments have been inefficiency, expense and remoteness. Nowhere is that more disastrously evident than in strategic planning, or in the absence of strategic planning. Put starkly, strategic planning for London has ceased to exist. In its place, we now have the Department of the Environment's so-called strategic guidance for London. I should love to know what Ministers intend to do about it, because it is nothing more than a string of clichés joined together with wishful thinking.
Draft guidance is predicated on the fallacy that fewer and less effective planned controls and the free operation of the market will lead to greater prosperity, a better environment, and easier movement, and will correct the imbalances in labour supply and availability of housing in London. As the man said, only an idiot in a hurry would believe such absurdities to be an adequate replacement for the Greater London council's strategic plan for London. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of idiots in a hurry, and many of them end up as Ministers in the Department of the Environment.
My Bill would reintroduce citywide local government for London for those services where the strategic overview is essential, such as land use planning and transport, and for those services where economies of scale can be achieved, such as waste disposal, sewerage and emergency services. For those who wish to know the Labour party's official line, the document "London Pride"—printed in sparkling Kinnock colour—launched by my right hon. Friend last month, spells out the Labour Government's intentions for the capital city.
Although I fully expect Labour policies eventually to catch up, my Bill goes a step further than "London Pride". I envisage that the new London council will be run from county hall, which will be taken back into public ownership by compulsory purchase. I should not expect compensation terms to be generous. No one—I direct this at my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—involved in the outrageous and insulting proposal to turn county hall into a hotel should be under any illusions concerning the utter determination of myself and my London Labour colleagues—I have the honour to be the chair of the group—to recapture county hall for the people of London. The developers and their backers have been warned. They will have only themselves to blame if they choose to disregard these warnings.
My Bill proposes the introduction of a directly elected mayor of London.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: My hon. Friend?

Mr. Banks: I would be honoured to serve in that capacity—it would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise—but that is not the purpose of my Bill. When London votes for the new London council based on single-member constituencies, it will be able to vote also on the basis of proportional representation, with a run-off ballot if necessary, for a new mayor to speak on behalf of all London. That person will have wide-ranging executive powers and authority, and will become the London equivalent of Jacques Chirac of Paris or Mayor Dinkins of New York. I envisage the London mayor residing in the Mansion house and maintaining the lord mayor's show. The existing City corporation would, of course. be abolished.
London needs a powerful voice, and one that can speak on behalf of London. Perhaps my voice would be powerful enough, but I would not have the temerity to put myself forward for such early candidature before knowing whether any hon. Member will vote against the Bill. As I have said, we need a powerful voice. We need someone who is able to speak on behalf of the capital and all Londoners. Only the ballot box can provide that level of authority and accountability.
I reject the idea of a Minister for London, as such a person would owe his or her loyalty to the Prime Minister, who appoints, or to collective responsibility in the Cabinet. We want someone whose first loyalty would be to London and its citizens, someone who can stand up to central Government and make the case for the capital. A directly elected mayor would be able to fulfil all such functions. I accept that such an office is new to local government in this country, but it would bring us into line with practice on the continent and in north America. I believe that it is a proposal whose time has come and that it will find great support throughout London.
In common with many Londoners, I have much for which to thank the London county council and the Greater London council. Those of us who love this great city are deeply saddened by its decline in recent years. We are determined, however, to restore London to its pre-eminent position. My Bill would be one step in that renaissance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Miss Kate Hoey, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mr. Harry Cohen.

LONDON GOVERNMENT

Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the people of London the legal right and duty to elect a London Council and Mayor so that the needs of London may be met and its administration secured on a basis that is fully accountable to the people through the ballot box; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

Orders of the Day — Environmental Protection Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 6

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COUNTRYSIDE FUNCTIONS

'( )—(1) The Committee established under section 103(2) below shall exercise the functions specified below in liaison with the Councils established under section 98.

(2) The functions of the Committee shall include—

(a) the collection of data and information for the purposes of monitoring nature conservation;
(b) the undertaking of research at a national level relevant to its functions;
(c) the establishment of common standards and criteria relating to natural and wildlife conservation;
(d) the establishment of common standards and criteria relating to access to and enjoyment of the countryside.

(3) For the purposes of the exercise of its functions, the Committee may appoint such staff as it considers appropriate, and may require the councils to carry out decisions on matters falling within its functions.'.—[Mr. Gould.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following:

New clause 10—Countryside Council in Wales—
`( ) (1) If the Chairman or any member of the Countryside Council for Wales is found to have a substantial interest in any land in Wales over which a public right of way runs and which is ploughed up and not reinstated contrary to section 134 Highways Act 1980 and section 61 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or is otherwise unlawfully obstructed or unlawfully interfered with, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of inviting him to resign his position on the Council
(2) In addition to section 106(1) above and to the generality of the contents of schedule 6 and in accordance with section 106(2), the Countryside Council for Wales shall have the following duties, namely—

(a) to secure and promote public access on foot to the countryside by way of public rights of way and public access to open country;
(b) to form a specific recreation branch whose primary objective shall be to institute a programme of work to he implemented in conjunction with local authorities with the goal of having all public rights of way in Wales unobstructed and adequately maintained and signposted by the year 2000 and maintained in such a state thereafter;
(c) to produce an annual report detailing the Council's footpath and access work and progress towards achieving the goal in (b) above;
(d) to establish and maintain an access advisory committee, consisting of persons who are not members of the council, but who have a particular interest in promoting the recreational use on foot of rights of way and open country and the reopening of unlawfully obstructed rights of way;

(e) to consult the advisory committee as to any proposals of the Council relating generally or specifically to rights of way and public access to the countryside;
(f) to consider any representations made to it by the advisory committee (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (e) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Council carries out its functions regarding rights of way and public access to the countryside.

(3) The Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Commission shall be empowered to advise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of any farmer or landowner who unlawfully obstructs or otherwise unlawfully interferes with any public right of way and the Ministry shall suspend any payments, grants or subsidies to such a farmer or landowner and shall not resume suspended payments until such unlawful obstructions or unlawful interferences have been removed or ceased as the case may be.'.

New clause 42—New Authorities for England, Scotland and Wales—
`( ).—(1) There shall be five new statutory Authorities, to be called the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council for Wales (in this Part referred to as "the Councils"), the Countryside Commission for England and the Countryside Commission for Wales (in this Part referred to as "the Commissions").
(2) The Authorities shall have the following membership, that is to say:

(a) the Nature Conservancy Council for England shall have not less than 10 nor more than 14 members;
(b) the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland shall have not less than 8 nor more than 12 members:
(c) the Nature Conservancy Council for Wales shall have not less than 8 nor more than 12 members;
(d) the Countryside Commission for England shall have not less than 10 nor more than 14 members;
(e) the Countryside Commission for Wales shall have not less than 8 nor more than 12 members;

and those members shall be appointed by the Secretaty of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2) above so as to substitute for the number for the time being specified as the maximum membership of an Authority such other number as he thinks appropriate.
(4) Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of the Authorities and other matters relating to the discharge of their functions.'.

New clause 43—Grants to Authorities—
`( ).—(1) The Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury make to the Authorities grants of such amounts as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(2) A grant under this section may be made subject to such considerations as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury think fit.'.

New clause 44—Landscape conservation and informal countryside recreation in England and Wales—
`( ).—(1) For the purposes of landscape conservation or the promotion of informal countryside recreation, and fostering the understanding thereof, the Commissions shall, in place of the Countryside Commission established under the Countryside Act 1968, have (so far as pertains to the countries to which they relate) the functions conferred by sections ( ), ( ) and ( ) below.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commissions in discharging their functions to take appropriate account of actual or possible landscape or recreational changes.


(3) The Commissions shall discharge their respective functions under those enactments (as amended by Schedule 5) on and after a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State may give the Commissions, or any of them, directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of any of their functions other than those conferred on them by section ( )(a) below.
(5) In this part the definition "landscape conservation" includes the conservation of flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.'.

New clause 45—Further functions of Commissions—
'( ).—(1) The Commissions shall have the following functions in addition to those specified in section ( ) above, namely:

(a) such of the functions previously discharged by the Countryside Commission under enactments specified in Schedule 5 to this Act as are assigned to them in accordance with the amendments to those enactments effected by that Schedule.
(b) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation;
(c) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge to any other person about landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation in their area or about matters arising from the discharge of their functions under this section or section ( ) below;
(d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any of their functions under this section or section ( ) below.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing either of the Commissions, if consulted by the other about a matter relating to the functions of that other Commission, from giving that other Commission any advice or information which they are able to give.'.

New clause 46—Nature conservation in Great Britain—
'( ).—(1) For the purposes of nature conservation, and fostering the understanding thereof the Councils shall, in place of the Nature Conservancy Council established under the Nature Conservancy Act 1973, have (so far as pertains to the countries to which they relate) the functions conferred by sections ( ) to ( ) below.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Councils in discharging their nature conservation functions to take appropriate account of actual or possible ecological changes.
(3) The Councils shall discharge their nature conservation functions on and after a day to be appointed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State may give the Councils, or any of them, directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of any of their nature conservation functions other than those conferred on them by section (109) below.
(5) In this part "nature conservation" means the conservation of flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.'.

New clause 47—Nature Conservancy Councils' functions—
`( ).—(1) The Councils shall each have the following functions, namely—

(a) such of the functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy under the enactments specified in Schedule 6 to this Act as are assigned to them in accordance with the amendments to those enactments effected by that Schedule;

(b) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation for policies for or affecting nature conservation in their area;
(c) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge to any other person about nature conservation in their area or about matters arising from the discharge of their functions under this section or section ( ) below;
(d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any of their functions under this section or section ( ) below.

(2) The Councils shall each have power—

(a) to accept any gift or contribution me to them for the purposes of any of the functions conferred on them by subsection (1) above or section ( ) below and, subject to the terms of the gift or contribution, to apply it to those purposes;
(b) to initiate and carry out such research directly related to those functions as it is appropriate that they should carry out instead of commissioning or supporting other persons under paragraph (d) of that subsection;

and they may do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to those functions including (without prejudice to the generality of this provision) making charges and holding land or any interest in or right over land.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing any of the Councils, if consulted by another of the Councils about a matter relating to the functions of that other Council, from giving that other Council any advice or information which they are able to give.'.

New clause 48—Joint Committee for Great Britain—
'( ) (1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Councils shall each have the following functions, in addition to those specified in section 109 above, namely—

(a) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting nature conservation in Great Britain or elsewhere;
(b) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge about nature conservation in Great Britain or elsewhere;
(c) the establishment of common standards for the monitoring of, and research into, nature conservation and for the analysis of the resulting information;
(d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any matter mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above;

and section 103(2) and (3) above shall apply to the functions conferred by this subsection as they apply to the functions conferred by subsection (1) of that section.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, and in addition to the functions specified in section ( ) above, the Commissions (including here the Countryside Commission for Scotland) shall have the following functions, namely—

(a) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State or any other Minister on the development and implementation of policies for or affecting landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation in Great Britain and elsewhere;
(b) the provision of advice and the dissemination of knowledge about landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation in Great Britain and elsewhere;
(c) the establishment of common standards for the monitoring of, and research into, landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation, and for the analysis of the resulting information;
(d) the commissioning or support (whether by financial means or otherwise) of research which in their opinion is relevant to any matter mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above;



and subsection 101(2) above shall apply to the functions conferred by this subsection as they apply to the functions conferred by subsection (1) of that section.
(3) No function falling within subsection (1) or (2) above shall be exercisable except—

(a) through the discharge of that function by a committee (known as the Joint Committee) of all the Authorities (both the Councils and the Commissions, including the Countryside Commission for Scotland) consisting of the Chairmen of each Authority, and an independent Chairman and three independent members appointed by the Secretary of State; or
(b) in pursuance of a direction of the Secretary of State given to one of the Authorities requiring that Authority to exercise that function;

(4) The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Environment Department Countryside and Wildlife Advisory Committee shall be a non-voting member of the Joint Committee.
(5) The expenses of the Joint Committee shall be defrayed by all the Authorities (including the Countryside Commission for Scotland) in such proportions as the Authorities may agree or in default of agreement in such proportions as the Secretary of State may determine.'.

New clause 49—Power to make grants or loans—
`( ).—(1) The Authorities may each, with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, give financial assistance by way of a grant or loan (or partly in one way and partly in the other) to any person in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by him in doing anything which—

(a) in the opinion of the Councils is conducive to or fosters the understanding of nature conservation;
(b) in the opinion of the Commissions is conducive to or fosters the understanding of landscape conservation or informal countryside recreation.

(2) No consent or general authorisation shall be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above without the approval of the Treasury.
(3) On making a grant or loan an Authority may impose such conditions as they think fit, including (in the case of a grant) conditions for repayment in specified circumstances.
(4) The Authorities shall exercise their powers under subsection (3) above so as to ensure that any person receiving a grant or loan under this section in respect of premises to which the public are to be admitted (on payment or otherwise) shall, in the means of access both to and within the premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any), make provision, so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the premises who are disabled.'

New clause 50—Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to new councils—
`( ).—(1) The Nature Conservancy Council shall make one or more schemes ("transfer schemes") for the division of all their property, rights and liabilities (other than rights and liabilities under contracts of employment for their staff) between the Councils.
(2) On the date appointed by a transfer scheme, the property, rights and liabilities of the Nature Conservancy Council which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this subsection, become property, rights and liabilities of the Councils to which they are allocated by the scheme.
(3) Part I of Schedule 7 to this Act shall have effect in relation to transfer schemes under this section.'.

New clause 51—Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to new commissions—
`( ).—(1) The Countryside Commission shall make one or more schemes ("transfer schemes") for the division of all their

property, rights and liabilities (other rights and liabilities under the contracts of employment of their staff) between the Commissions (as defined in section 98(1) above.
(2) On the date appointed by a transfer scheme, the property, rights and liabilities of the Contryside Commission which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this subsection, become property, rights and liabilities of the Commissions to which they are allocated by the scheme).
(3) Part II of Schedule 8 to this Act shall have effect in relation to transfer schemes under this section.'.

New clause 52—Employment by new Authorities of staff of existing bodies—
`( ).—(1) Any person who immediately before the date appointed under section 108(3) above is employed by the Nature Conservancy Council shall be entitled to receive an offer of employment from one of the Council (to be determined in accordance with proposals made by the Nature Conservancy Council).
(2) Any person who immediately before the date appointed under section 106(3) above is employed by the Countryside Commission shall be entitled to receive an offer of employment from one of the Commissions (to be determined in accordance with proposals made by the Countryside Commissions).
(3) Part III of Schedule 7 of this Act shall have effect with respect to the making of offers under subsection (1) and (2) above.'

New clause 53—Dissolution of Nature Conservancy Council—
`( ).—(l) On the date appointed under section ( ) above the chairman and other members of the Nature Conservancy Council shall cease to hold office and after that date—

(a) the Council shall consist only of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such one or more other persons as may be so appointed; and
(b) the Council shall have only the following functions, namely—

(i) anything which falls to be done by the Council under any transfer scheme under section ( ) above;
(ii) the preparation of such accounts and reports as the Secretary of State may direct;
and such other functions as are necessary for winding their affairs.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Councils, dissolve the Nature Conservancy Council on a day specified in the order as soon as he is satisfied that nothing remains to be done by that Council.
(3) The Secretary of State may pay to persons who cease to hold office by virtue of subsection (1) above such sums by way of compensation for loss of office, loss or diminution of pension rights, as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.'

New clause 54—Dissolution of Countryside Commission—
'( ).—(1) On the date appointed under section ( ) above the chairman and other members of the Countryside Commission shall cease to hold office and after that date—

(a) the Commission shall consist only of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such one or more other persons as may be so appointed; and
(b) the Commission shall have only the following functions, namely—

(i) anything which falls to be done by the Commission under any transfer scheme under section ( ) above;
(ii) the preparation of such accounts and reports as the Secretary of State may direct;
and such other functions as are necessary for winding their affairs.



(2) The Secretary of State may by order, after consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council and the Councils, dissolve the Nature Conservancy Council on a day specified in the order as soon as he is satisfied that nothing remains to be done by that Commission.
(3) The Secretary of State may pay to persons who cease to hold office by virtue of subsection (1) above such sums by way of compensation for loss of office, loss or diminution of pension rights, as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.'

Amendment No. 137, in clause 109, page 110, line 32, at end insert
`and
(f) the development with relevant local authorities of opportunities for public access to the countryside for the purposes of recreation and education, and of joint cooperation for the conservation and enhancement of the countryside, wildlife, and flora and fauna.'.

No. 150, in page 111, line 21, after 'of, insert
`a chairman (not being the chairman or a member of the Councils) appointed by the Secretary of State together with'.

No. 107, in line 23, after 'non-voting members' insert 
`including two representing nature conservation interests in Northern Ireland'.

No. 108, in line 26, at end insert—
'( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above the joint committee shall have the following functions, namely-

(a) the provision of advice for or making of recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of adding any bird to, or removing any bird form, any of or any part of Schedules 1 to 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
(b) the provision of advice for or making of recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of adding to Schedule 5 or Schedule 8 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 any animal or plant which is in danger of extinction in Great Britain or is likely to become so endangered unless conservation measures are taken, or for the purposes of removing from Schedule 5 and Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1981 any animal or plant which is no longer endangered or likely to become so endangered;
(c) the provision of advice for the Secretary of State for the purposes of identifying any rare or vulnerable habitats in Great Britain and for indicating gains or losses of any such habitats;
(d) the provision of advice for or making recommendations to the Secretary of State for the purposes of designating any area of land or sea in order to comply with an international obligation; and
(e) the making of an annual report to the Secretary of State as soon as possible after 31st March 1992 and every 12 months thereafter on the exercise of the functions contained in this section which shall include any advice so given.'.

Mr. Gould: In March 1989, the Government exploded a bombshell on the conservation world. It announced that the Nature Conservancy Council was to be dissolved—some would say dismembered—and that its functions would be shared out between a number of new country councils. The announcement was made without consultation and without any visible preparation, although it must be said that preparations had, apparently, been made behind the scenes, given the rather unusual number and nature of appointments to the NCC that preceded the announcement.
The announcement aroused great anxiety. First, it raised a suspicion about the genesis of the proposal. Many saw it as having emanated from a deal struck between the Scottish Office and the powerful commercial interests that

wanted to pursue their forestry proposals, especially in the flow country. Secondly, it aroused great anxiety because there were well-founded fears among the voluntary conservation movement that the consequences of such a dismemberment would be a serious body blow to the conservation movement in Britain. Since then there has been a great deal of discussion and debate; indeed, literally thousands of words have been spoken and written on the subject.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his intervention and influence in these matters. It is only fair to say that, in many respects, he has recognised the weight of the case against the Government's proposals. He did what he could to meet the legitimate demands of the conservation movement. The Carver committee reported on the nature of the joint committee that would be required to preserve the science base that the NCC had so carefully built up. There have been expressions of opinion from virtually every body and every person involved in conservation. What has been remarkable, however, about the whole debate—which has now been taking place for the best part of a year—is how little of the essentials have actually changed. They remain constant, and they are the suspicions and the fears that remain unallayed and the concern for the future of nature conservation in this country which remains at the heart of the anxiety that people continue to feel.
The Opposition claim no particular originality in their stance on these issues. We have deliberately sought to align ourselves with the overwhelming expression of opinion from the conservation movement. We have consciously embraced its arguments because we believe that they are at the heart of the matter. They are essentially to do with the preservation of the excellent conservation effort that the NCC has laboured so long to produce, and for which it can claim—as I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree—a great deal of the credit.
The concerns of the NCC, the voluntary conservation movement and the Labour party are about the gap that will be left by the dismemberment of the NCC and about the inadequacy of the Government's proposals to fill that gap. Our concerns are essentially about conservation, and especially the need to preserve the science base; to provide a United Kingdom dimension to the advice tendered to the Government; to establish, maintain and monitor common standards throughout the United Kingdom, irrespective of the artificiality of politically drawn boundaries; to ensure that the representation of the United Kingdom in international bodies should be properly undertaken; and to gain recognition of the growing extent to which environmental issues are recognised as having to be dealt with on a transnational rather than a local, regional or national basis. Those concerns continue to be expressed by the bulk of those who have consistently commented on these issues.
In case there remained any doubt on the subject, I recounted at some length in Committee—I shall not do so again—the width and extent of opinion expressed by so many bodies in Scotland, England and Wales which had, in varying ways and on varying grounds, expressed their concern and opposition to the Government's proposals. It is no exaggeration to say that the whole of the conservation world has expressed its concern.
Despite the many hours that we spent on the subject in Committee and the efforts that Ministers have made to allay concerns, it is remarkable that, as far as I am aware,


not a single voluntary body has changed its essential opposition to part VII of the Bill. The voluntary conservation movement has listened to what the Government have had to say, it has looked at the arguments and considered the counter proposals, but it remains unshaken in its concern about what is proposed and its view that part VII would be better abandoned altogether.
As evidence for that continuing view, I cite not a comprehensive list but, for example, the document recently issued by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation which, in its introduction, says
The Royal Society for Nature Conservation, in common with the voluntary nature conservation sector, remains convinced that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council are flawed; they will weaken a United Kingdom approach to nature conservation and in particular the arrangements proposed for the co-ordination, development and enforcement of a United Kingdom policy for nature conservation are at best unworkable and at worst non-existent.
That is pretty strong stuff and it is supported by many comments that I have seen from other voluntary bodies. I cite at random the Council for the Protection of Rural England which has been prominent on the matter. In its recently produced document it highlights what it believes is
the illogical and ill-conceived proposals for the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commissions".
In Committee, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside and I crossed swords on the view of the NCC and, in particular, its chairman, Sir William Wilkinson. It was common ground that the chairman's position in such circumstances is naturally difficult. He must continue to operate his organisation within the framework laid down by the Government and he cannot easily simply contradict what he is told by the Government, but if he is unhappy he must find ways of expressing that.
Therefore, it is relevant at this stage of our considerations to draw attention to a letter written by Sir William Wilkinson to many Members of both Houses of Parliament dated 27 April which lays to rest any continuing doubt that there may be about Sir William's position and that of his council. I hope that I shall be forgiven for quoting two or three paragraphs from it.
After an introductory paragraph, Sir William says:
My Council welcomed the positive opportunities for conservation which could be afforded by country agencies, but questioned the logic of the proposal. It pointed out that NCC was already moving towards a federal structure, giving greater autonomy to the countries within a GB framework. Since then, NCC has made several representations to the current Secretary of State, and to his Department.
While recognising the contribution strong Country Councils could make I remain concerned that a new set of conservation bodies answering to different Government Departments might not be able properly to maintain a sufficient 'GB overview' of science and policy issues in Britain so essential to the continued conservation of our natural heritage. It is important too that the UK should put forward a coherent view on international issues affecting nature conservation and the environment.
The Environmental Protection Bill has now been considered by the House of Commons in Committee. However, many of the concerns about the Bill as it affects NCC, which we set out in our commentary distributed earlier this year, remain unresolved, especially over questions of resources, clarity of legislation, and the work of the proposed Joint Committee.
That is the testimony of someone who is closely involved in the issue and who has an excellent record of

service to the Nature Conservancy Council and the conservation movement. It is also fair to say—I imagine that this will not be contested—that within the Nature Conservancy Council in its various forms a substantial majority of the work force remains hostile to what is proposed and is worried about the implications.
I was fortunate enough to spend part of yesterday at a nature reserve at Thursley just over the border in Hampshire. I was able to see the excellent work done by nature conservancy staff there and to talk to some of those involved. While they exercised proper constraint and caution about what they said about a highly contentious issue, nevertheless they made it clear that they remain concerned. I did not ask them, but they said, as I expected them to, that they would welcome some decentralisation and devolution in nature conservancy. They were prepared to say that in the past the Nature Conservancy Council was too centralised and that they were prepared for arid wanted the proposed amount of decentralisation. Almost all the people who have commented on the issue have made a similar point.
Whenever the issue has been debated, we have made it clear that we would welcome decentralisation arid devolution of certain functions, but when people make that concession they also say that it is not necessary to establish more decentralisation and devolution and to do damage and violence to the conservation effort made throughout Great Britain by the Nature Conservancy Council.
We want a conservation effort that is effective at national, international, local and regional levels. However, nothing that we have heard in the debate leads us to conclude that the Government, having made an unwise arrangement in the first place—on the basis of which this proposal is now brought forward—have yet resolved the problem of how to meet the demands for devolution in Scotland and Wales and preserve a Great Britain dimension to the science base, the setting of standards and the other important matters for which the NCC has been responsible.
Our concerns about that central issue remain, but we also have other anxieties. One of the remarkable things about the proposal is the extent to which it is now apparent that, on the best evidence that we can find, it will be an expensive exercise to dismember and reallocate those functions. It is remarkable because the Government have made something of a fetish of reining back public spending and yet the best estimate we have, from the NCC, is that the reorganisation could well add £20 million to its current budget. Other estimates show that that is a substantial underestimate of the true cost. For example, the study undertaken by the World Wide Fund for Nature in Scotland, which produced a convincing piece of work, concludes that in Scotland an increase in funds of £19 million—from £9 million to £28 million—will be required, as will an increase in the number of permanent staff from 184 to 557. On the same basis, it concludes that the figure for Great Britain could be around £80 million compared with the current budget of £45 million. Those are substantial amounts and I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on those estimates and tell us how much he thinks that his proposals will cost.
Another range of anxieties takes us back to the genesis of the issue—the nature of the deal and the motivation of the people who unwisely agreed to this ill-considered measure. We stated in Committee and on other occasions


our well-founded suspicion that commercial forestry interests in Scotland were irked by the NCC's intervention which inhibited them from proceeding with forestry projects, especially in the flow country. A leading article published by Forestry and British Timber virtually—to use admittedly colourful language—danced on the grave of conservation and celebrated the victory, as the magazine saw it, of commercial and forestry interests.
4.15 pm
In recent weeks, Lord Sanderson addressed the National Farmers Union of Scotland and, perhaps unwisely, gave the game away. Discussing the issue before his audience, he said:
You will also know that a Bill is going through Parliament as I've said to give us control, and the Secretary of State control, over conservation matters in Scotland.
There is little evidence in those comments of any real concern for conservation in Scotland. Lord Sanderson was clearly admitting to an attempt to wrest control over conservation matters from those whose true concern they were in order to place it in the hands of politicians who wished to meet the needs of commercial interests. I should be glad to pass the transcript of Lord Sanderson's remarks to the Secretary of State if he would like to see them. Lord Sanderson has honestly and frankly conceded that that is exactly what he said, although he has, of course, argued the toss about the meaning of "control".

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I am a little confused at this point in the hon. Gentleman's otherwise pellucid speech. Is he making the point that nature conservancy, however it is organised, should not be responsible to Secretaries of State in England, Scotland and Wales? I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about my speech so far, but he is introducing an unnecessary difficulty. Most people understand perfectly well that there is a great distinction between the current position, where a body such as the Nature Conservancy Council is responsible to a Secretary of State, and a situation where control is to be exercised as the objective of the Bill. In explaining the purpose of part VII, Lord Sanderson made that point explicit. He was not merely continuing the current arrangements whereby the NCC in its new guise was to be responsible to the Secretary of State. He said:
You will … know that a Bill is going through Parliament … to give us control".
That was the change announced by Lord Sanderson and that is why it is so difficult for him to own up to it.
It is interesting to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has joined the Secretary of State for the Environment on the Front Bench. I suspect that the Secretary of State for the Environment was nearly as alarmed and unhappy about this deal as many of us and many of those in the conservation world were when we discovered it. I pay the right hon. Gentleman full tribute. He has done his best. I get the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State have well understood the need to move to meet the justified concerns of conservation bodies.
The Secretary of State for the Environment found himself lumbered with a deal that was unwisely concluded

by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has been unable to shake his right hon. and learned Friend and his Cabinet colleagues and to move from that deal. I regret that the evidence so far—I hope that the Secretary of State can set me right—is that, as on other issues, the Secretary of State appears to have lost out. Well-intentioned though he is, he has not carried the day in political terms. The Government, the country and the conservation movement are therefore lumbered with this deal, and I am sorry that that has happened.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the Labour party, which claims to believe in home rule for Scotland and the devolution of conservation issues to Scotland, would organise a conservation agency based in Scotland which was not accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman has been, perhaps uncharacteristically, obtuse. We are not talking about accountability or responsibility. We are not even choosing the language: I am talking about Lord Sanderson's language. It was he who chose to use the word "control". It was he who pushed that to the forefront of his remarks when he tried to explain the central purpose of the Bill. He does not dispute the use of the word. I am surprised to see the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) coming to his aid. In correspondence with the Ramblers Association and others, Lord Sanderson has tried to reinterpret the meaning of what he said. The words are clear. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland wants to make yet a further attempt to redefine the word "control".

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) about Opposition policy. Is he aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the shadow Scottish spokesman, has said that the Labour party is committed, in the context of its support for devolution, to the creation of a Scottish natural heritage agency, including the present functions of the NCC in Scotland, which would be answerable in Scotland and not to the Department of the Environment? If the hon. Gentleman is aware of that how does he reconcile it with his criticism of the proposals before the House?

Mr. Gould: The Secretary of State did not take the opportunity which I thought he was claiming to comment upon the remarks of his noble Friend, so that issue at least remains firmly established.
On the second issue, I intend to move immediately to the effect of the proposals, because that issue was unnecessarily left in great doubt for a very long time in Committee. I intend to invite the hon. Member for Gordon, the Liberal Democrats' representative in Committee, to comment on it. We are very clear on the matter. [Laughter.] I can see that it is a relief to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches to be able to laugh about something; they cannot comment seriously upon it. Let us be clear that no one in the Opposition or in the conservation movement has ever argued against the devolution that would be required to meet Scottish interests. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not grasp that what is at issue is whether, in providing that greater devolution, it is necessary to


dismantle, dismember, dissolve or destroy the Nature Conservancy Council which operates on a Great Britain basis.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend spend a few minutes emphasising the difference between "accountable to" and "control"? The conservation bodies are worried that "accountable to" should be the approach on which the NCC puts forward the best scientific advice on the basis of the scientific evidence. What is worrying about "control" is that the controlling body would selectively put forward the advice which the Secretary of State wants to hear. That is where the difference is between the approaches.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend could hardly have put it better. For the purposes of the debate it is significant that the Secretary of State for Scotland and, perhaps more surprisingly, the hon. Member for Gordon do not want to talk about control; they would much prefer to talk about accountability. Yet, on the admission of Lord Sanderson, control is at the heart of the issue and is put forward by him as the major purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Keith Mans: Earlier the hon. Gentleman quoted some grossly inflated figures about the cost of the Government's proposals for reorganisation. As he has told the House that he is clear about his party's proposals, perhaps he would also tell the House what those proposals would cost.

Mr. Gould: I am interested to hear not so much from the hon. Gentleman as from the Secretary of State, because it is his proposals which we are debating. As they are enshrined in legislation which is about to leave the House and go to another place, we are entitled to know what the Government say the proposals will cost and whether the Nature Conservancy Council is right or wrong in its estimate of an additional £20 million.
The issue of what would take the place of the Nature Conservancy Council and of what would meet its Great Britain-wide functions was clouded by the three or four hours that we were constrained to spend on that matter in Committee because of the obfuscations of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) of which we were the victims. The hon. Gentleman was unable to answer a simple question relating to the replacement of the Nature Conservancy Council and the establishment of the country councils and the joint committee. We asked whose view would prevail in the event of a dispute between the joint committee and the conservancy councils. I do not think that the Minister will dispute the fact that we spent three or four hours constructively trying to get an answer and some elucidation on that point.
In the end, it became clear why it was so difficult for the Minister to answer that question. It was not because he did not know the answer or was unable to understand it. It was simply because he was unwilling to give that answer because it was embarrassing not only to himself and to the Government's case, but a good deal more embarrassing for the hon. Members for Gordon and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).
The answer that we received was that the joint committee would have no power to resolve such a dispute. In other words, despite all the claims and posturing, there would not be a Great Britain or United Kingdom body

that could decide an issue that was of nationwide importance rather than of Scottish, English or Welsh importance. In the event of a difficult dispute that could not be resolved because there is no provision for its resolution, the matter would be resolved by the intervention not, as I understand it, of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Is that right or wrong? Is the resolution of such disputes to rest with the Secretary of State for Scotland or not? [Interruption.] I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland is intervening from a sedentary position, but he seems unwilling to come to the Dispatch Box to give us the reassurance that we need.
If this is to be regarded as a genuine issue of devolution, what on earth are the Government doing in setting up a framework that provides that a dispute that might involve Scottish, English and Welsh interests will be resolved by the Secretary of State for the Environment? It was exactly on that point that the hon. Members for Gordon and for Angus, East revealed themselves as having been taken for an embarrassing ride. They supported the provision on the grounds that at least something could be salvaged from the conservation wreckage and that that would be made more acceptable by the fact that they would gain something on devolution grounds. However, we can now see that there is nothing to be gained on either devolution or conservation grounds and that the sole purpose of the provision remains, as Lord Sanderson pointed out, the "control" of conservation in Scotland because the intervention of the Nature Conservancy Council had frustrated commercial interests in Scotland.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am anxious to assist the hon. Gentleman on this point. One of the main purposes of the structure that we have suggested is to avoid and prevent such disputes. That is why we have made it perfectly clear that the councils will be discharging a number of their functions through the joint committee. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is very much our view that to establish a new quango, which is the hon. Gentleman's position, is more, rather than less, likely to lead to disputes. Although we believe that our proposals would avoid disputes, in the event of a dispute, it would have to be resolved by the Government, which includes both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.

Mr. Gould: I do not mean to be unfair to the Secretary of State and I hope that he will take this comment in the spirit in which it is meant, but he was not present for the bulk of our debates in Committee and perhaps does not fully understand the weight of the argument that caused his hon. Friend the Member for Wells such a great deal of difficulty.
The Secretary of State has taken a very optimistic view of the way these arrangements might work, but what he has perhaps not fully understood is the very real question, which was raised continuously by my hon. Friends, about what would happen if a country council had decided that a particular research project, let us say, was entirely a matter for it and was one that it did not wish to support, whereas the joint committee, looking at the matter from a United Kingdom or Great Britain viewpoint, had decided that, on the assumption that it covered the whole of the North sea, for example, it was a matter of legitimate nationwide concern and that it wished to pursue that


research. That is not a wholly unlikely eventuality, and there is nothing in the arrangements which offers us any clue—certainly nothing in what the Under-Secretary could tell the Committee, so no clue was offered there either—about how that problem will be resolved.
4.30 pm
It is not unreasonable to ask why—after months of preparation, we are told, have gone into this—the Government have not foreseen that sort of problem and why they have been unable to solve it. The only answer that they can give is that, for the time being, not only is conservation off the agenda, because no conservation body will be able to take a United Kingdom or Great Britain wide view of the matter, but so is devolution, because, despite the bobbing and weaving of the Secretaries of State, the matter will be resolved by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The arrangements so far put forward are rudimentary and fail to answer many of the questions that arise on the staffing, financing and powers of the joint committee. We do not believe that that is a good enough situation for the House to commend and to endorse. That is why we put forward our new clause, not because we think it the last or the best word on the subject but because it gives at least some indication of the minimum requirements necessary for the joint committee to go even part of the way towards fulfilling its true role and filling the gap left by the unnecessary dissolution of the Nature Conservancy Council.
I hope that during the debate the Secretary of State will be able to tell us a little more about his plans for the joint committee. We were told in Committee that the Government could not enlighten us on these matters because they were busy contemplating the Carver report; we were unhappy about that and hoped that by the time we got to Report the House as a whole would have before it some proper proposals from Government on which we could take a view.
That, again, is not the case. I think it regrettable. I assume, and I hope that the Secretary of State will assure us, that the other place will be rather better treated and will know more precisely what is in the Government's mind. In the meantime, we regard the current position as wholly unsatisfactory. We doubt whether any proposals made by the Government in line with the disreputable deal that was originally struck could be either acceptable or satisfactory, but in the absence of any detail on the matter we believe that are entitled to make the strongest possible protest, because a destructive act has been undertaken with no attempt to describe what remedial action will be put in its place.
It is on the ground of our concern for conservation in these British isles, which has always been the central ground, that I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Chris Patten: This is a more decorous occasion than some in which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I are obliged to take part. I shall attempt to avoid provoking any great excitement and to avoid traversing some ground with which both the hon. Gentleman and I, and indeed the whole House, are perhaps excessively familiar. I shall not go on a bus tour of a number of controversies, some real, some imaginary,

which have provoked so much interest and debate in Committee, on other occasions in the House and outside the House.
I shall begin by restating the central objectives of part VII of the Bill. As the House will know, they are to achieve a more effective delivery of nature conservation in each country, and in Wales and subsequently Scotland to create integrated agencies, embracing both wildlife and countryside functions. We have made it crystal clear in the past few months that we fully recognise that we shall need special arrangements to deal with nature conservation issues that have a Great Britain, United Kingdom or international dimension. Such issues will include the effects of climate change on wildlife or of acid rain on wildlife. We believe that that should be achieved by appointing a joint committee of the three country agencies under an independent chairman appointed by me.
As I said on Second Reading, the first chairman will be Professor Holliday, who is respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House for his experience, independence and scientific distinction. He began work in a shadow capacity on the first of last month. He is already playing a vital role in helping to plan the programme, staffing and resources of the joint committee. He is also advising me on the composition of the committee. The Government expect to announce several further appointments this month.
Work is also proceeding steadily on planning the organisation of each of the new country agencies and announcements will be made next week about the recruitment of their shadow chief executives. The hyperbole of the Opposition cannot disguise—let me be euphemistic; I do not wish to provoke excitement—the fact that they are in some confusion on the issue. The appearance of Lord Carver's report has added somewhat to their discomfort. That report does not find our proposals unworkable as the Opposition had hoped, nor does it seek to transform the joint committee into a fourth quango, as some Opposition Members propose. Instead, it makes a series of helpful recommendations designed to clarify the relationship between the country agencies and the joint committee.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the Secretary of State accept them?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will not be kept in suspense for more than a moment or two.
I had orginally hoped that we might be able to respond to the Carver report in detail during this debate. However, I am keen, particularly in view of past criticisms that we have not always consulted or discussed matters sufficiently widely, to ensure that we give some of the more detailed recommendations of the Carver report, including on the composition and staffing of the joint committee, the most extensive consideration possible. Therefore, I cannot set out our definitive position today. However, without reservation I can say that my colleagues and I have been most impressed by the balanced approach taken by the Carver committee and the practical thrust of its recommendations. It is an admirable report, which will be of considerable help to us.
I assure the House that the Government will respond positively and comprehensively, certainly in time for the Second Reading debate in another place to which the hon. Member for Dagenham referred tangentially in his


remarks. I also hope to assure the House that we shall bring forward an amendment in Committee in another place to carry that response into law. Naturally there will be an opportunity for the House to consider the Government's response when the Bill returns here for consideration of any amendments made in another place.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State tell the House the truth? He is praying for a defeat in another place. With that in mind he is trying to do as little preparation as possible, which will be counter productive, so that he can wait until he is defeated in the other place and then sort the whole mess out.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman may have guessed that there are many things for which I pray in life, but among their number I do not include defeats anywhere, including in the other place. It is not one of my ambitions to stimulate constitutional arguments. I believe that our legislative proposals will earn the enthusiastic support of their Lordships, particularly after we have responded in terms to the useful recommendations in the Carver report. In the meantime, before we are able to respond in detail to that admirable report, I do not regard the amendments tabled by the Opposition as acceptable. I do not believe that that will come as an overwhelming surprise to the hon. Member for Dagenham.
New clause 6 would extend the joint commitee's remit to cover countryside matters. That echoes one of the recommendations of the Carver report, which we are currently considering. Otherwise the new clause largely repeats what is already in clause 109, which gives the joint committee powers to undertake research and establish common standards relating to its nature conservation functions. Much of the data and information that the joint committee will need to carry out its functions will be supplied by the country councils. Some data and information may need to be obtained directly from other bodies, for example, the Natural Environment Research Council. There is no need for the legislation to be specific on that point as the powers in clause 109(1), paragraphs (a) to (d), are sufficient. They echo the country councils' powers for their own areas and those of the existing Nature Conservancy Council. No one has questioned the power of the NCC to assemble the data that it needs to carry out its functions and there is no reason to believe that matters will be any different after the reorganisation.
I assure the House that the joint committee will be provided with the resources, including manpower, required for its statutory purposes. The hon. Member for Dagenham will be aware that, this year, we have increased conservation spending through the NCC by almost 10 per cent. in real terms, and, in addition, an extra £1·4 million was earmarked for reorganisation costs in the coming year.
We made it clear in our evidence to Lord Carver's committee that a small secretarial and technical unit would be required to support the joint commitee. In turn, the Select Committee has recommended that the joint committee should have up to 20 professional staff, with some supporting staff. The Select Committee also made it clear that the joint committee should not be an independent quango, but should derive its funds through the country councils. The ability to employ staff directly is one of the hallmarks of full quango status, so we shall not want to do that. We had accepted, however, even before

the Carver report, that some clarification should be given in the legislation to cover the country councils' ability to provide staff on secondment to support the joint committee. We intend to provide that clarification through an amendment in the other place.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that issues change from time to time, so it is extremely important that the joint committee should be able to draw on different members of staff of the various country councils rather than have a permanent staff who may be unable to respond to such different issues?

Mr. Patten: That is correct and my hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the argument. At the moment Professor Holliday is discussing with those concerned what sort of staff and expertise he will need straight away to discharge the initial responsibilities of the joint committee. My hon. Friend has perceptively pointed out that those needs will change from time to time.
As I said in my second intervention in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham, with regard to directions from the joint committee to the country councils, I confess to some puzzlement. The councils each provide members of the joint committee—and, indeed, it is the councils acting collectively through the committee that are charged with carrying out the Great Britain, United Kingdom, international and scientific functions set out in clause 109. The need for "directions" does not, in my view, arise. The committee will provide advice under clause 109(1)(a) and (b) and not the individual councils. The committee and not the individual councils will establish common standards under clause 109(1)(c). The committee and not the individual councils will commission, support or if necessary undertake research under clause 109(1)(d.). The councils would be acting ultra vires if they tried to carry out the functions in clause 109 individually, except in circumstances which would, I guess, be wholly exceptional—where a Minister had invoked the reserve powers in clause 109(2)(b) to require that a clause 109 function be carried out by an individual council. It would therefore undermine the purpose of the Bill to accept the Opposition's new clause. There is the separate issue—to which the new clause may be addressed, although, if so, it does not really fulfil its purpose—of possible overlap between activities undertaken by the individual councils under clause 108. Lord Carver has suggested that we need to take action on that point, and we are considering that question seriously.
Amendment No. 108 contains further suggestions for expanding the joint committee's remit. One of them, paragraph (e), is that the joint committee should submit its own annual report, which is similar to a recommendation in the Carver report. We shall address that in our response to the report. The other proposal, in paragraph (b), is already accepted in principle by the Government. The Bill already states that the quinquennial review of nationally endangered species, and advice about those species, will be undertaken jointly by the country councils. We intend to bring forward an amendment elsewhere to make it clear that that will be a function to be carried out through the joint committee. In general, however, I must emphasise that it is not our intention that the joint committee should usurp the country agencies' role in designating sites, or in


making site-specific recommendations to Ministers. The committee is to have a much broader role than that, and we shall not accept amendments that blur the distinction between its advisory role and the executive responsibilities of the country agencies.
The Government's proposals have certainly aroused strong emotions—the hon. Member for Dagenham was perfectly reasonable in making that point. However, we do not believe that they have been matched by equally strong arguments for maintaining the status quo. Certainly no one, least of all the Opposition, has been able to convince me that it is inherently wrong to have separate public sector agencies for nature conservation in each country, provided that there are satisfactory arrangements to deal with the wider dimensions of wildlife, as we are providing through the statutory joint committee under Professor Holliday.
I said at the outset that I was anxious to avoid too much argument, but I believe that there is almost as much confusion about the Opposition's policy on this issue as there is perhaps about their policy on local government finance—that was borne out by some of the interventions on the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham. The Opposition appear to have one policy in Scotland and another in Wales, which has the enthusiastic endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition, whose views on such issues we must presume are of some account. The Opposition have another policy, which, from time to time, is advocated in the House, and which is reflected in much of their dialogue with outside nature conservation bodies. Whatever the Opposition's policy—however, it changes from time to time—I hope that they will come to see the benefits and good sense of our proposals and appreciate the intellectual inadequacy, confusion and lack of logic in their being in favour of a Parliament in Scotland, but against a nature conservancy agency for Scotland. There is a deal of constitutional confusion in their position; perhaps it will be cleared up when the Opposition spokesman replies to the debate on new clause 6.
A new beginning is needed and that is what the Bill will achieve. The conservation credentials of the new agencies cannot be doubted seriously in view of the appointments of shadow chairmen that my colleagues and I have already announced: Lord Cranbrook, Magnus Magnusson, Michael Griffith, as well as Professor Holliday. Each of those appointees has links with the voluntary movement, and I am sure that they will want to build on them in the coming months as they prepare for the changeover next year.
Many hon. Members may have seen the article in The Scotsman last month about Magnus Magnusson. I commend it to the House and quote with considerable approval his final words:
We are at the start of something hugely exhilarating and constructive.
I look forward to the new agencies living up to the high hopes and expectations that we all have of them. Whatever debates there may have been in the House over the past few months, I trust that the new agencies can carry with them the good wishes of the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State for the Environment. He took up his new role and was immediately asked to perform a series of

Houdini tricks to escape from all sorts of situations. He has two major shows going on at the same time—the problem of escaping from the poll tax and escaping from the proposals we are talking about today. No doubt, in relation to the poll tax, he is a bit like Captain Webb heading for the top of Niagara falls in a barrel. His only problem is whether he will be in the barrel when it goes over, or whether it will be one of his predecessors or the Prime Minister.
It is a much simpler task to get out of the straitjacket of this measure. His strategy is quite clearly designed; he will be defeated on the Bill. He cannot be defeated in the Commons, because the Government have too large a payroll. Although he will not admit it, he is looking forward to being defeated in the House of Lords. That is why the Government have done so little work to flesh in the details. They do not want to do work that will be counter-productive. The Secretary of State is looking forward to the Second Reading debate in the House of Lords and the following Committee stage in the hope that they will get him off the hook of the difficulties related to the Nature Conservancy Council.
There is a further little advantage for the Secretary of State. He is well aware that, from time to time, the House of Lords has turned over various bits of the Government's legislative programme. There is a feeling in the House of Lords that it can upset the Government once, or possibly twice, on a Bill, but it must not cause too much upset. Therefore, the big advantage for the Secretary of State is that, if he is upset over this little bit of the Bill in the House of Lords and it provides a solution that he would privately welcome, it probably means that, in the way in which things work, the House of Lords will spend less time causing the Government difficulty on one or two of the other crucial parts of this large Bill. Therefore, that has attractions for the Government.
I wish to stress, particularly to those in the House of Lords, that in the amendment that they finally persuade the Government to accept, we must clearly set out the importance of conservation in this country. What is sad and worrying is that, in Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council started to give awkward advice to the Secretary of State and is now being punished for that.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It did not know what it was talking about.

Mr. Bennett: The worrying fact is not that the Government did not accept the advice, but that they blamed the Nature Conservancy Council for bringing the awkward advice. The political role must be examined. I accept that Ministers must take decisions, but the decision should be to listen to the advice. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that the council did not know what it was talking about. That is a decision for the Minister to make, having weighed the evidence. However, sadly, the Government turned on the messenger and attacked him. The Government now say that, because the Nature Conservancy Council brought advice that Ministers did not like, they want to hamstring and stop the council from bringing forward that advice, which was based on perfectly good scientific evidence.
I want to stress that it is important that we equip the Nature Conservancy Council with the resources to carry out the scientific examination and bring forward the scientific evidence, and then Ministers must make the


political decisions. Sometimes they will come down on the side of conservation, and sometimes on the side of development. They have to carry the responsibility for that political decision. It is wrong to try to influence and bias the evidence put forward to them to make it easy for them to make a soft political decision because they can say that all the evidence points in that direction. It worries me that in future the Natural Conservancy Council will be worried about giving its advice.
I understand all the arguments about devolution to Scotland and Wales, but we must firmly have in mind on what basis the Nature Conservancy Council should be considered. I am talking in terms not of small bits of the United Kingdom, but of the whole of our planet. Within those terms, we must look at what sort of ecosystem we have in the United Kingdom that unites it. It is largely our maritime climate that gives much of the United Kingdom a unique ecology that is not found in most of western Europe.
When allocating resources, we must take that into account and look right across the whole of the United Kingdom. The scientific effort—the effort to conserve—should take into account Britain's role in the world in terms of what we are trying to protect and conserve, rather than considering it merely in terms of what is suitable in a small area of the United Kingdom.
It is important that we get that right. The amendment moves us towards a federal structure, which is clearly the way for the Government to proceed. I hope that that decision will be put forward in the House of Lords.
When will the Government make their announcement about commons? There have been two parliamentary answers stating that the Government are carefully considering making a statement about their proposals. I hope that we can be told exactly when that statement will come, and hear why, sadly, the Government did not put that into this legislation. I should have thought that we could have sorted out that commons legislation and the access problems. I commend the Minister of State's statements about footpaths and the need for all our public footpaths to be open to access by the year 2000. The Government have not given us much evidence that they will put in the resources.
I am concerned about, and want some clear statements from the Government on, new clause 10 and the Countryside Council for Wales. I do not want to push new clause 10 to a vote, but I hope that the Government will say exactly what will happen in Wales. Due to the lack of resources proposed in Wales, it was impossible to set up the Nature Conservancy Council committee for Wales as a separate body, and it had to be rolled into the countryside organisation in Wales. Therefore, there is merely the Countryside Council for Wales, one organisation with three separate functions. It is difficult for it to perform those three functions with sufficient balance.
First, the council has a conservation role, in putting to Ministers and other people in Wales the need for conservation. Secondly, there is the question of use and the difficulty of balancing the different competing elements for the use of the countryside between the farming community, the people who live in the area, those who want industrial development and the jobs that go with it, and those who want to go out and enjoy some of the most beautiful country in the United Kingdom. It will be hard for one organisation to hold the ring and to be seen to hold it fairly between those elements.
It was a little unfortunate that the Government announced the appointment of Michael Griffith as the chairman of the new organisation without taking more care to check up on his background. I do not want to criticise Mr. Griffith, but I firmly criticise the Government in Wales. If one is going to appoint someone chairman, it is only reasonable to check on his background. As far as I can tell, all the Government did was to check that he was sympathetic to the Government and was a member of the Conservative party. They did not check how good a landowner he was or whether all the footpaths on his estate were well looked after.
The Ramblers Association did some checking as soon as the appointment was announced and found that many of the footpaths on Mr. Griflith's property were blocked. To be fair to the man, he has immediately set out to remove the obstructions on his footpaths, but I am worried that it will not be particularly easy for the new body vigorously to pursue prosecutions to do with footpath matters in Wales when everyone in Wales will be able to say that, until he was appointed, Mr. Griffith's own record was not especially good.

5 pm

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman attacking M r. Michael Griffith, because he is a friend of the ramblers. His estate in Wales is more open than any other that I know. I could reel off to the hon. Gentleman the extent to which it is accessible. It is true that one footpath had been blocked by one of his tenants, but he immediately restored it. He has also invited the Ramblers Association to discuss its problems with him with a view to resolving any further difficulties. He has been pressing the local county council to erect signposts where rights of way on his land are joined by a metalled road. His credentials in terms of access are first rate.

Mr. Bennett: I am glad to hear that, but I am a little surprised. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister asking for that information, and he told me that he could not give it. I then wrote to the county council, and received a prompt reply telling me that it was making inquiries into the obstructions on the footpaths that I had listed. But I have not had a definitive reply from the county council. It appears that tabling this new clause has suddenly persuaded the Secretary of State to make some inquiries, but we could have avoided this whole procedure if he had answered my orignial question.
I found it amazing that the Minister said that he did riot have the information I sought. Presumably he made some inquiries to discover whether Michael Griffith had a good record on footpaths, but when we discussed the matter in Committee, and when I tabled parliamentary questions before Easter, the Minister could give us no answer. I am glad that he has started to sort out this problem and that Mr. Griffith is now saying that he will attempt to improve on what was not a very good record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] It is all very well people telling me to get on with it, but the law of the land says that one should not obstruct footpaths on one's land. The Minister said that Mr. Griffith had committed only one crime—that only one path was obstructed—but when the Ramblers Association went down to the estate to have a look, more than one path


was obstructed. Since then, Mr. Griffith has removed the obstructions, but we all have a duty to ensure that footpaths crossing people's land are free from obstruction.
I find Conservative Members' attitude deplorable. The Minister also found it deplorable, because he has said that it was unsatisfactory that the Countryside Commission's survey found that 75 per cent. of footpaths were obstructed somewhere in a two-mile stretch, and he said that he was determined to have those obstructions cleared by the year 2000.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to do an injustice to Mr. Michael Griffith, who was conscious that some of the footpaths on his land were of little value for recreational walking, so he has established a new footpath that he considers would be of more use to walkers.
I can let the hon. Gentleman have a complete list of the many bodies that use Mr. Griffith's estate: they include Riding for the Disabled, the Pony Club, Denbigh angling club, Colwyn Bay pigeon club, the British Horse Society, and the North Wales Harness Association; and many charitable events, including the Denbigh and Flint agricultural show, take place there.

Mr. Bennett: That is all very commendable, but let us take up one of those points. Mr. Griffith decided that one of the footpaths was not much used and that he could provide a more valuable one. I seem to remember that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment took the same view once. There happened to be a little footpath in the Lake district that came down past one of his properties. Perhaps the path took away some of the privacy of the property, and he just assumed that he could get rid of it.
Certainly it is not very nice if a footpath brings people down past someone's property so that they can look through the window and see what he is having for breakfast, but the footpaths are an historical record of the ways in which people used to move about this country, and we should protect that record, using the procedures laid down for diversion orders. I am fairly certain that Mr. Griffith did not use that procedure on his land.
I do not want to continue the argument any further; I accept the Minister's promise that Mr. Griffith will campaign in Wales to ensure that footpaths are free from obstructions—that is the important thing. My impression is that large numbers of footpaths in Wales are still difficult to go along because of barbed wire, fallen trees and undergrowth—and the other obstructions found by the Countryside Commission's survey.
I want a guarantee that the new body in Wales will pursue just as vigorously the aim of ensuring that all footpaths in Wales are clear of obstruction by the year 2000 as we hope the Countryside Commission will in England.
I also want an assurance from the Minister that more vigour will be deployed in securing access agreements in Wales. The Peak district national park has a good record of granting such agreements and we now have access to most of the high ground in the Peak district, but that is not so in Wales. I do not want to go into all the detail of the evidence that I put forward about the Arans, but there is a sorry history there: for most of this century people had

free access to them on what they thought were public footpaths, but a small group of farmers, the Aran society, began to object—I understand why—and there is now a limited number of access routes on to the Arans.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will not happen in other parts of Snowdonia. Sad to say, large numbers of routes over the mountains of Snowdonia are not recorded as public rights of way on the definitive map, but they are such in custom and practice. In recent years, one farmer has started to press to be paid money for an access agreement, and I would not object to that. Many hill farmers should be receiving money from the Department of the Environment for encouraging access, instead of receiving it from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to produce surpluses—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Or rather, from the Welsh Office.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that; the money should come from the environmental body in the Welsh Office, not from MAFF.
I press the Government for a clear statement on what will happen to access in Wales. We must ensure that there is some justice for the different groups of farmers. Some farmers have been able to use their land for caravan and camping sites, thereby earning a good deal of income, but often the next-door farmers suffer the disadvantage of having people spill over on to their land from these sites, without deriving any income from them.
I hope we can be told that the Government are looking with some enthusiasm at establishing access agreements so that farmers will receive some income in that way. I hope that the Government will urge that agriculture grants should not be paid to people who block footpaths. They should say that a condition of grants is that farmers ensure that all public footpaths are open to the public.
It is important for farmers and others living in the countryside to see that people are encouraged to go into the countryside, to enjoy it and to appreciate how carefully farmers look after it. They should be willing to support the farmer's efforts. The Government should declare that they have a policy for encouraging access in Wales which will ensure that footpaths are not obstructed. They should look more and more at giving free access to high moorland, especially in Wales, without the necessity to follow footpaths, many of which are not useful to either the farmer or the walker because they suffer from erosion.

Sir Hector Monro: I should like to redress the balance following the speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He founded his comments on the letter from the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, Sir William Wilkinson. Sir William has been a fine chairman and we have all appreciated his exceptional work and are pleased that he is to continue for another year. He was writing in his personal capacity because in the extract read by the hon. Gentleman, Sir William said, "I am concerned", and not that the council was concerned. Since July Sir William has taken up his position with some council members who are on his side, but the majority of the members have been in favour of the proposals. The present Scots members on the council are unanimous about that.

Mr. Morley: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Sir William's view expressed the opinion of the majority of the NCC staff? Has the NCC ever voted on the matter?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman should not jump in so quickly. I have just started my speech and I shall shortly deal with the matter of staff. Of course Sir William is speaking on behalf of the staff.

Mr. Morley: On whose behalf does the hon. Gentleman speak?

Sir Hector Monro: I am speaking on behalf of nobody but myself as the longest serving member of the Nature Conservancy Council. I have not been asked to speak on behalf of anybody and am merely stating the facts as I see them. Of course the staff have been concerned from the beginning, as any staff would be when they realise that there may be reallocations of jobs. However, the Minister has said from the start that their jobs are assured.

Mr. Morley: It is not just jobs that the staff are concerned about. They are concerned about the principle and quality of nature conservancy in Britain.

Sir Hector Monro: I can hardly utter a word without the hon. Gentleman intervening. I am coming to that matter. Some staff may also have the personal problems of moving house. I agree that they are worried about the future attitude of the council towards nature conservation. However, I do not think that all the members of staff are worried about that.
We work in great harmony in the NCC. We do not operate under contention and in all the years that I have served on the council I do not recall having to vote on any issue. It is plain that the majority of the appointed members of the NCC are in favour of the legislation. It is right that that should be made clear.
It is important to bring home to the House and especially to the Opposition that all members of the NCC were anxious from the start about the overall scientific view. However, that was in July and subsequent meetings, changes in attitudes and pronouncements from the Government meant that by Second Reading it was clear that the Government had made a firm decision about how the scientific council would operate. Everyone was pleased to see that Professor Fred Holliday, a man of exceptional ability, was prepared to take on the work.
It is wrong for the hon. Member for Dagenham to try to find difficulties in every solution. Under the legislation, I do not foresee any difficulty about coming to a satisfactory working arrangement between the councils and the scientific council about how advice is to be given to the Government, who may have to take that advice to Europe or to international forums.
The hon. Member for Dagenham should try to extend his vision and look separately at Scotland, England and Wales. I do not have the slightest doubt that when the natural heritage agency is in place in Scotland its immense power will enable it to look after scenic beauty, nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, footpaths such as the Border way and other splendid new routes that the Countryside Commission has developed. When all those powers are controlled by one body, we can look forward to seeing conservation and heritage in Scotland in firm hands. That control will he coupled with the effective

voluntary bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland, organisations with an interest in flora and fauna, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other distinguished Scottish organisations.
The hon. Member for Dagenham does not seem to realise that many people in Scotland were worried that when contentious matters were raised they were not raised from our headquarters in Edinburgh or from the Countryside Commission headquarters at Battleby but from Peterborough. There was a feeling that we Scots who are much nearer the ground in Scotland should have an opportunity to look after nature conservation in the highlands and islands and the west and, indeed, all over Scotland. We wanted a stronger regional set-up and a stronger Scottish headquarters which would run its own scientific operation.
Throughout the discussions since July, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that resources would be available. I am confident that that is so and that we will have a strong scientific base in Scotland, which is what we have wanted for many years. The appointment of Magnus Magnusson, then president of the RSPB, as chairman of the Scottish NCC was an exceptional choice. He is a man of immense capability and, as the Secretary of State for the Environment has said, he has great talent and knowledge. He will lead the Scottish NCC with tremendous skill. He would not have taken on the job if he had not been clear in his mind that this was the right way forward.
The appointment of Lord Cranbrook to look after the NCC in England was an indication by the Government of how strongly they felt about having a man of great experience as chairman of that body. I may be out on a limb, but I would not be in the least surprised if, within a decade, we see the NCC amalgamate with the Countryside Commission, as will happen in Scotland in the coming year.
The figures for staff given by the hon. Member for Dagenham were inaccurate. It is difficult to imagine that Scotland would need about two thirds of the present staffing complement in England. That is an exaggeration. Of course the staffing levels will be substantially higher than they are now and there will also be scientists. I accept that this will cost money, but it is worth spending money to develop in Scotland nature conservation, the scenic beauty, the heritage and all that that stands for. If that is not worth spending money on, I do not know what is. I am prepared to accept that extra millions will have to be spent to do this.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was wrong to say that all this has taken place because the Government were annoyed by the attitude taken by the NCC to forestry in the flow country. There were discussions, and the NCC was right to put forward its view, but many matters have to be talked about around tables, and compromises have to be made. We were satisfied with the conclusions that were reached about the areas that could and could not be planted in the flow country and the highlands generally.
We are setting out on a course that offers tremendous possibilities. It has shown that the Government are keen to have the highest possible standards of conservation throughout the United Kingdom and to devolve them into the three countries of Scotland, Wales and England, separately. Each will have councillors who are closely


concerned with their country and with conservation in it. That is the best way to keep a close check on what is happening at the ground level.
I want to see more regional offices, so that the general public can be closer to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. At the moment, offices are widely spread. One sees a regional officer from the NCC only rarely, and that is purely for geographical reasons. We want the country more involved in what we have been trying to do for a long time. This is a splendid opportunity to do that and it is wrong for the Opposition to throw cold water on an exciting and exhilarating idea. I hope that the House will reject the new clause.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not agree with the new clause, for a number of reasons that are consistent with the position I took in Committee and which my party has supported. My party has a relatively small percentage of the membership of the House, but our Members of Parliament represent large constituencies. We represent about 20 per cent. of the land area of Great Britain, and nearly half the land area of Scotland and Wales. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we represent areas in which nature conservation is extremely important and we are very aware of the interaction between the local community and conservationists—certainly more so than the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), as he has shown.
Given the implications of the debate for Scotland, it is interesting that no Labour Member representing a Scottish constituency is present, despite the fact that such Members constitute about 20 per cent. of the Labour party. I do not blame them for being absent, because the new clause is somewhat embarrassing for them. In its enthusiasm for its policy review to seduce and woo the yuppie vote in the south of England, the Labour party has put forward an argument that has betrayed its heartland in Wales and Scotland and the real interest of people there.

Mr. Gould: Although we had the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's company in Committee, he was replaced as the environment spokesman for his party. However, his successor is not present. Is that because his successor might be unhappy with the position taken by the Liberal Democrats of backing major land-owning interests in Scotland against nature conservation throughout the country?

Mr. Bruce: That intervention demonstrates the hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Cheap.

Mr. Bruce: It is not just a cheap point but shows a complete lack of understanding of what goes in in rural areas in Scotland and Wales and of the interaction between parts of the community. If the hon. Member were a little more knowledgeable, he would understand why we have taken a vigorous line on this matter and why nature conservation is about the recognition that all land, throughout Great Britain, is managed and has to be conserved. The argument is about how it is managed. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and if he listens, he will hear my case.
The new clause is an attempt to subvert and frustrate the whole thrust of the Bill, which is to devolve

conservation to Scotland and Wales. As I said in an intervention, the Labour party claims to be in favour of a Scottish conservation agency but is opposing a Bill that would provide such a framework.
Secondly, the new clause would ensure that the joint committee could commission and organise its own research and employ as many people as it wanted. Therefore, it would be a phoenix arising from the ashes of re-establishment of the NCC, but that body has failed to serve the interests of the Scottish people and is being changed. That is why I do not support the new clause.
Many people involved in conservation activities and research in Scotland are looking forward to the opportunity that the new body will present to enable them to take a larger share of the research programme that will be commissioned in Scotland than they have been able to secure from the English-based NCC. They are people with commitment, knowledge and expertise in Scotland, in our universities and well-established research institutions, who have not been given the opportunities that they deserve. They will play a constructive role in the future when the new agency has been established.
One or two questions still arise, and I hope that the Government will be able to give us answers to them. One is how the new body will be funded and structured. That will be the critical test of how the new proposals meet the needs of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dagenham said—most members of the Committee received a report of this—the World Wide Fund for Nature has made its own calculations of what it thinks would be necessary. It suggested that Scotland would need a budget of £28 million and that the total for the United Kingdom would be about £80 million compared to the current £45 million that is spent through the NCC.
Nobody expects the Minister to agree to those figures or to accept that they are anything other than the judgment of one body. However, before the Bill leaves the House—certainly before it leaves Parliament—we should have some idea of what funding the Government have in mind. The level of funding will be a criterion on which conservationists can judge whether the Government's language about commitment to conservation is based in truth. The sooner that the Government put a figure on funding, the sooner they will be able to demonstrate whether they are serious about the commitment to long-term conservation that they claim lies behind this reorganisation.
The Labour party says that the change will be a landowners' charter and simply hands control over to them. We have to resist that possibility. I know that Ministers in the Scottish Office are at least mindful of the danger and recognise that Scottish-based conservationists will want to be part of the organisation. It would be difficult even for this Government to set up a body that excluded a representative group of Scottish-based conservationists.
The Labour party has to explain why it wishes to deny us the chance to have a Scottish-based body with Scottish conservationists determining our main priorities for how conservation in Scotland should be managed. The same applies for Wales. I resent the patronising implication that somehow the people based in England have a greater knowledge and understanding of how conservation in Scotland should be managed. That completely negates the


idea of allowing not only devolution of administration but local communities to be involved in the discussions affecting their livelihoods and communities.

Mr. Morley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link, which represents Scottish nature conservation bodies, is entirely opposed to the Bill in its present form? Is he saying that its position is patronising?

Mr. Bruce: I am aware that it is opposed to the Bill in its present form. I am aware, however, that it will accept at the end of the day—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to let me finish my sentence. It will accept that there are gaps in conservation and research within the NCC that will now be able to be put right. We are talking of bodies that have complained about the NCC's insensitivity in areas such as marine research and issues related to the marine environment. They have complained that the NCC has not given the priority that is so important to Scotland in its research commissioning. It is a matter of judgment whether the devolved body will take that into account.
It seems that it is the united view of conservationists that, because the proposal that we are discussing came from the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), whose motives were suspicious, they are not prepared to support it. When the present Secretary of State spoke after the hon. Member for Dagenham he said that he felt that the argument that had been advanced behind the emotion was unconvincing. I believe that as the debate progresses the argument becomes less and less convincing. As I said in Committee, it will be welcome when the conservation agencies recognise that change will take place and that they should play a constructive role in making the new system work in the best interests of the people of Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was citing some of the conservation bodies that are worried about the level of marine research that is being carried out. Is it not an ideal opportunity, with the university of St. Andrews having one of the finest departments specialising in marine research, to place some research contracts in Scotland that are connected with some of the problems that are of concern to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman advances an argument that is relevant to his connection with the university of St. Andrews. The department to which he refers is not the only department in Scotland that could benefit by being more involved in research in conservation throughout Scotland. Indeed, many people who are involved in conservation feel that in the existing regime their expertise has been undervalued or ignored, and not built into the process.
There is no virtue in rehearsing the arguments that we had in Committee and the examples that were used then. One of the reasons why the change is necessary and generally popular within Scotland—given the Labour party's strength in Scotland, this is compromising and embarrassing for it—is that people in our communities are fed up with being told by people with no knowledge and understanding how their affairs should be managed. I have quoted the examples of the Islay mosses and the flow

country, where even now agreements are not being honoured. Also, the NCC agreed areas that could be accepted for forestry and areas that should be conserved, but then lodged objections when proposals were put forward involving areas that it had previously agreed should be planted. That obviously creates a great deal of frustration. People feel that they are not being involved in a proper decision-making process. A great deal of anguish and hardship could have been avoided if there had been more consultation and involvement with the local community.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) commented favourably about the way that farmers manage the landscape. Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen seem to imply that farmers are landowners who are the enemies of conservation. By definition, it is farmers who are most involved in the management of the landscape. Farmers need to be involved in the entire process of designating sites of special scientific interest, which affects their day-to-day activity and livelihood. There is no doubt that the NCC has, on occasions, been insensitive about the way that SSSIs have been designated. As I said in Committee, it has taken the Scottish National Farmers Union to take up the argument with the NCC and to persuade farmers of the merits of what the NCC has tried to do. That has been necessary because of the NCC's insensitivity.
If we have a Scottish agency that involves the Scottish wildlife agencies, conservation agencies, farmers and local communities, we shall have a far better chance of achieving a balanced programme of conservation which meets the needs of conservation generally and proper land management, as well as the needs of local communities, which are often operating in extremely fragile economic circumstances. It is absurd to suggest that the individuals concerned do not appreciate the quality of their environment. The quality of our food products is a major component of their market attraction, and tourism in Scotland is popular because of the scenic beauty of the countryside and the way in which it is managed and conserved.
The Labour party may have reasonable grounds for criticising certain aspects of what the Government are proposing and for the lack of information about funding and staffing, and the Government should be more forthcoming on those grounds. However, the Labour party is not convincing when it tries to demolish the devolved process and expects to believe that its commitment to devolving nature conservation matters to a Scottish Parliament must be accepted as sincere. After all, the framework that the Government will set up could easily be taken over by a Labour Government. The Labour party is so confident that it will win the next general election; it could ensure that the structure is converted to meet that Labour Government's requirements. There will be a ready-made structure which will be much closer to the needs of the Scottish people than the existing mechanism that the Opposition want to keep. In those circumstances, it seems that the Opposition have taken a cowardly and unambitious position and have failed to recognise what can be achieved.
Effectively, the new clause is a Trojan horse. It has been designed deliberately to ensure that the devolved country bodies do not have the source of power that is the intention behind the Bill. It is unacceptable that the joint commission should become big brother and tell the


national groups what to do. The people of Scotland will not put up with that, and nor will the people of Wales. I do not think the people of England will either.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: First, I wish to refer briefly to the comments that have been made about the character and references of Mr. Michael Griffith. It is deplorable that, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, there have been constant personal attacks on the chairman designate. This reached an absurd level when it was claimed in Committee that Mr. Griffith's background was in the National Trust. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) had the temerity to say that the National Trust knew virtually nothing of, or had virtually no experience in, landscape.
That so hurt and upset the National Trust that it had cause to write to every member of the Committee to draw attention to its distinguished record in the preservation of the landscape and natural heritage of the United Kingdom. I hope that we can start to talk about the issues and not ad hominem politics. It was regrettable that ad hominem politics reared its ugly head again during the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), when it was suggested that he was a spokesman for landowning interests because he took a different view of the issue. That was preposterous.
There are hon. Members on both side of the House who are genuine and sincere in their commitment to conservation. I know of Opposition Members who have that commitment, and there are those on the Government Benches, among whom I count myself, who share it. The debate is not about goodies and baddies—people being for or against conservation—but about how conservation is best delivered. The record of the NCC suggests that it is better to have conservation in the community that goes with the grain rather than to have it imposed from on high.
Once conservationists have the image of an elite group who force their views on others, the battle is lost. It would not be possible then, no matter how well staffed the NCC or any other body was, to ensure that conservation was carried out in practice. It must be the consideration of each and every person in the country that we must ensure that we preserve our natural environment. That is best done in a devolved framework.
I confess that when the proposals first surfaced, I was rather worried. Indeed, I went to the trouble of letting my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary know that I was not prepared to support them. But a great deal has changed since then. The three issues about which I was most concerned were, first, the preservation of the science base; secondly, the avoidance of parochialism by the councils; and, thirdly, the prevention of the formation of a bureaucracy that would lead to an inferior delivery of conservation at the grass roots.
Since that time, a joint committee has been established and three distinguished people have been appointed to head the councils for England, Scotland and Wales. The Opposition are trying to pretend, as they did in Committee, that none of that has happened, and that we are where we were 12 months ago. The truth is that the whole framework has shifted dramatically. I am sure that, under the distinguished leadership of Professor Holliday and others, the science base will be enhanced. As the hon.

Member for Gordon rightly said, there are a number of distinguished academics in England, Scotland and Wales who can help in that work.
Knowing the generosity of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish and Welsh Offices compared with what happens in England, I do not doubt that more money will be spent on conservation and that there will be more staff—

Sir Hector Monro: That is fully justified.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. I no longer have any worry about the science base and I am sure that access to it will be maintained in the Scottish and Welsh councils and that they will supplement it with their own science bases. It flies in the face of all experience to pretend that scientists are best utilised in central headquarters rather than out in the field. What happens at grass-roots level is much more effective than what happens at the centre.
I was also concerned about the possible emergence of bureaucracy. I make that point in particular because of my interest in the British Trust for Ornithology, which is located in my constituency. Indeed, I raised the matter several times in Committee. I wish to take this opportunity publicly to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having set in train a solution to the problem that I raised with him, which is quite acceptable to the trust. I have raised one or two additional technical points with him through correspondence, but rather than delay the House today I simply ask him to treat them equally seriously and sympathetically when the Bill is debated in another place.
It is right and proper to consider the recommendations of the Carver committee. Select Committees, both of this House and of another place, do a great deal of valuable work. They have the time to sift the evidence and to reach practical conclusions. It would be unfair if their serious recommendations were to be accepted or dismissed at the drop of a hat, rather than considered over a reasonable period and subject to consultation. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today about responding to the recommendations in another place once there has been time to go through the processes.

Mr. Gould: rose—

Mr. Jones: I shall certainly give way, which is rather more than the hon. Gentleman did for me in Committee.

Mr. Gould: I do not think that the record will bear out that uncharitable remark.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Carver committee's report deserves considerable consideration. Does he support the view of so many that the obvious place to give that consideration and to provide the time necessary is in the forthcoming White Paper, rather than in the Bill?

Mr. Jones: I do not agree. There has already been too much delay in trying to improve conservation. It would be far better to take this opportunity to legislate because there will be further opportunities, both in another place and when the Bill returns to this House, to decide whether the Government have it right in respect of the Carver committee's recommendations.
One of the difficulties with conservation during the past few years, since environmental issues became so important, has been the tendency to go against the grain


and to impose actions on people that they then resent, but which they might have agreed to work with had there been proper consultation. That is true in the farming community and in many other areas. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—who, sadly, is not here today—gave a good example of that in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Gordon when he referred to Islay.
The Bill is a framework. My right hon. Friend has responded sympathetically to the concerns expressed. I do not want the new clause to be carried, and I recommend the House to reject it.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) expressed his concern about comments made about the chairman designate of the Countryside Council for Wales. I assure him that no personal slight was intended. It is important that he and other hon. Members realise that there is a deep resentment in many parts of the Principality about landowners, usually wealthy landowners, heading non-elected quangos, whether in England, Scotland or Wales.
I am sure that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is aware of the resentment in the Principality that a number of people hold down one or more jobs—bringing themselves a great deal of money—including the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West referred, and who is also the chairman of Clwyd health authority. It is not right that all those jobs should be concentrated in the hands of certain individuals. They should be spread out. However, I do not intend to concentrate on that issue because my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) at least managed to bring the Minister to the Chamber to deal with it. We expressed our concern in Committee, when many Welsh matters were discussed, including the NCC and its break-up.
I must tell the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the Opposition do not believe that the break-up of the NCC is necessarily devolution. In any event, it had intended to sort itself out in a federal structure only days before the Government publicly issued their order to break up that organisation. We believe in devolution but not in the break-up of the NCC. Of course, the last people to whom we should look for devolution are the Government. They refused our request to devolve the National Rivers Authority to Wales and create a separate authority.
I wish to speak to the new clauses that have been tabled in my name, although I do not intend to press any of them to a Division. They are intended to probe. There is considerable concern in the Principality about the lack of consultation in the setting up of the new Countryside Council for Wales. People compare the Welsh position with that of Scotland where, whatever the rights and wrongs, there has been a two-state approach with proper consultation. The Secretary of State for Scotland said:
The two-stage approach we have adopted gives us time to collect ideas, consult informed opinion and to develop a practical and effective agency.
Hon. Members have referred to the Carver committee. Its report said:
To move in one step to the appointment of a Countryside Council for Wales is a major change, when Wales has neither an NCC nor a Countryside Commission of its own at present.

Great care should be taken to agree the mandate of the new Council in consultation with interested parties, including voluntary bodies.
There has been no consultation with voluntary bodies in Wales. The Welsh Minister is aware that many of the voluntary bodies concerned with the environment and with conservation are deeply opposed to the proposals. They include the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, the Association of Welsh Wildlife Trusts, the Welsh National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Friends of the Earth (Cymru), the Open Spaces Society, the Welsh Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Wales), and many others. They are all deeply concerned about what is happening, yet they have not been consulted.
I sincerely hope that when the Minister returns to the Welsh Office he will be able to find a means of proper and meaningful consultation before the new organisation is set up. We are to have a White Paper on the environment. If it were left to many hon. Members, we would abandon part VII until we had that White Paper. Since that is unlikely, let there be more consultation. The Government should listen to those who know, not necessarily to those whom they want to hear.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I find myelf in the remarkable and perhaps unreal position of failing to understand why the Labour party is taking the position that it is on this issue. I was not privileged to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but I have carefully read the debate on Second Reading and the Committee's deliberations on the setting up of the new Countryside Council for Wales, and I still do not understand why the Labour party has adopted its current position.
I would have been able to take the Labour party's arguments a little more seriously if it had tabled a constructive new clause that sought a better council and better consultation. However, I am not convinced, since all that we have is a wrecking new clause.
I am worried to find myself agreeing with many of the sentiments expressed by Conservative Members. I have always been led to believe that in Wales the Conservative party was the unionist party and the Labour party was the party of devolution.
I was persuaded by the convincing arguments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). He said that the people of Scotland should have the opportunity, through their own body and their own organisations, to make decisions that affect conservation matters in Scotland. That is an argument that I should like to advance on behalf of the people of Wales.
I accept that there are dangers in the breaking up of any body involved in conservation. Conservation cannot be considered in simple geographical terms because nature conservation transcends boundaries. But nobody here is seriously suggesting that we should have a European conservancy council despite the fact that many of the. problems affecting conservation in England, Scotland and Wales have a European dimension.
It is necessary to discuss some matters across boundaries because there are common interests in conservation matters but, ultimately, decisions affecting the lives of people within the countryside must be made at the closest possible point to the place where those people live. That is a fundamental principle. I would subscribe to


the belief set out in the Bill that decisions affecting conservation matters in Wales should be decided by an all-Wales body.
I accept that there are difficulties, that we are not entirely satisfied about the structure and whether the body will be properly and decently funded, but those are matters of detail. The real argument of principle is about the setting up of a body that would be responsible for conservation matters in Wales.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I shall be brief. I understand that other matters have to be discussed.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who argues his points well. He has said that some bodies in Wales are unhappy about the Government's proposals. But at the end of the day what convinces me is that those who will be responsible for conservation in Wales are in favour of the plans. The Welsh committee of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Welsh committee of the Countryside Commission in Wales support the plans wholeheartedly and it is important that that should be placed on the record.
The Labour party is generally in support of devolution and greater transfer of control to the historic nations of Britain. Therefore, it is with no pleasure that I say that on this occasion it has got it wrong in a massive way. The Labour party has also got it wrong in the drafting of new clause 6. It is a small but revealing point that it refers to
the undertaking of research at a national level".
I assume from the way in which the new clause is drawn that that refers to a British or a United Kingdom level. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Labour party will acknowledge that there is more than one historic nation in the counties of Britain.

Mr. William Ross: This is the second time that I have intervened in debates on the Bill which, unfortunately, does not cover the whole of the United Kingdom, only Great Britain. I make a plea that I made only the other evening in the House, not for the first time and this will not be the last time, that the House should do away with limited jurisdiction on matters of national importance and produce Bills which cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The sooner that that is done, the better for us all.
Amendment No. 107, to which I and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) have put our names, was debated in Committee on 13 March, when the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) addressed the Committee. It asks for clarification of the representation that is to come from Northern Ireland.
In Committee, the Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary. That may be so, but I should like him to tell me why. Is it that, whenever the term Secretary of State is mentioned, it includes all Secretaries of State, so that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can appoint Members to the Committee?
The amendment asks for two representatives of nature conservation interests in Northern Ireland. I believe that I have read somewhere that those peopole would attend as

assessors. I would have been much happier if those who advise me had asked for voting Members from Northern Ireland, which does not appear to be the case.
Northern Ireland has a number of extremely important winter sites for wildfowl. Strangford Lough is internationally famous and important, as is Lough Foyle. There are also a number of other smaller sites of interest. I take but little interest in birds, but I like to see them around and I took pleasure in hearing the first cuckoo for the first time in several years only the other morning. I hope that that is a sign of better things to come. Cuckoos and corncrakes used to be common in my part of the world. I hope that I hear one again before the year is done.
I hope that the Minister will give us more detail than he did in Committee in March. He said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would nominate two members to the co-ordinating committee. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House how they will be chosen and what groups of people and bodies in Northern Ireland they will represent. In Committee, he also said:
I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division, because it is completely unnecessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 13 March 1990; c. 1190.]
I hope that he will explain why it is unnecessary, because people in Northern Ireland would like to know.
I could say much more, but I assume that the legislation will be carried forward to Northern Ireland within the next year or two through the Order-in-Council procedure. I hope that it will be among the last Orders in Council to proceed because it would involve what we in the Unionist party describe as a theft clause, simply asking to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland, and the House could have been spared another late night and perhaps one or two sittings in Committee. Sadly, this is the last time I shall speak on the matter during debates on the Bill.

6 pm

Mr. Roberts: I welcome this opportunity to inject a Welsh element into the Government's winding-up speech for this evening's important and interesting debate, particularly as Wales is to be the first country in the United Kingdom to have a unitary body combining the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. Whatever else may be said about the issue, I can assure the House that the decision had nothing to do with the flow country. I am ashamed to confess that I am still not sure where the flow country is.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, when he announced the proposed changes last July, summed up the significance of the proposed new council for Wales when he said:
It also means that decisions affecting Wales will in future be taken in Wales. A single body attuned to the needs of the Principality will be of undoubted benefit to Wales."—[Official Report, 11 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 435.]
A Welsh body answerable to the Welsh Office must be in the best position to reflect Welsh needs. Judging by the debate this evening, that feeling is reciprocated by Scottish Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I understand that the Labour Scottish environment spokesman, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), has described it as "a sensible rationalisation" in The Scotsman. Therefore, the stance of the Opposition spokesman is inexplicable.

Mr. Gould: Since the Minister believes that our policy is inexplicable, perhaps I may make a further attempt to explain it to him. As we have said many times, there is a fundamental distinction between devolution and what is proposed in the Bill—the destruction of a Great Britain or United Kingdom basis for conservation efforts. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on that subject. Why does the former necessarily involve the latter?

Mr. Roberts: Whenever the hon. Gentleman speaks, he seems to use the word "dismemberment" to describe Government proposals and "devolution" to hint at his own. During the debate it has become absolutely clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House what the Government have in mind and why.
As the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) implied, there has been much play on the fact that there was no public consultation before the announcement was made. It seems strange that the Government should be criticised for first announcing their decisions to Parliament. Consultation on the broad principles involved was not necessary because the Government already had sufficient information to come to a conclusion about the structural reorganisation proposed.
The hon. Member for Torfaen repeated the comparison made with the consultations undertaken in Scotland. As I understand it, Scotland has not consulted on the proposals in the Bill any more than England and Wales. It has consulted on a second stage—on whether to amalgamate the present Countryside Commission for Scotland with the new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, since both bodies are large enough to be separate. In Wales that was not an option, since the Countryside Council employs only some 14 staff in Wales and even allowing for some strengthening on independence it would not be large enough to be a viable proposition. A joint body was desirable and inevitable for Wales.
Conservation and the wider countryside issues are essentially complementary. The NCC and the Countryside Commission already work very closely together in Wales and did so before the present proposals were ever suggested. As there was no viable alternative to amalgamation in Wales, consultation on the point of principle was unnecessary. Of course, we have invited comments on the implementation of our proposals.
Last October, I delivered a speech on the occasion of the launch of the annual review of the Countryside Commission's committee for Wales. Representatives of most of the relevant voluntary organisations in Wales were present, and I devoted a substantial part of my speech to the reorganisation and invited comments on the proposals.
I have also seen every organisation that has asked to see me. Those have included the chairman and chief officers of the national parks, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society, the Sports Council for Wales, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Countryside Commission and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. I mention the latter organisation in particular as it has been somewhat vociferous in its comments. In fact, the differences between us are not all that great. As the CPRW has clearly shown, it supports the proposed changes in principle, but is concerned about the timing and method of implementation.
I accept that, while some of the voluntary bodies are not in favour of the changes, we have had—as has been

pointed out—strong support from the chairmen arid members of the committees for Wales of the NCC and the Countryside Commission. All the political parties in Wales have generally welcomed the proposals, not excluding the Leader of the Opposition.
I am sure that all those who have reservations will see the advantages of the new arrangements once the Countryside Council for Wales is up and running and has had a chance to make its mark on the Welsh scene.

Mr. Morley: I have two questions for the Minister. First, if we agree with the thrust of his arguments, why did he argue against a Welsh National Rivers Authority being set up for the people of Wales? Secondly, he will recognise that Welsh bodies will have international obligations. As a member of the Government, will he give an assurance to the House that international obligations will be applied consistently throughout the countryside bodies in the three countries?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member for Torfaen, who raised that question in Committee, also answered it. He said that the remit of the National Rivers Authority was different, and, as it is a regulatory body, it is clearly different. I shall not explain what my right hon. Friend has said about the role of the joint committee but it is clear that the Countryside Council for Wales will contribute to any international obligations that we might have.
The Welsh dimension has clearly been exercising the mind of the hon. Member for Torfaen, who has tabled 13 new clauses—amounting to his version of this part of the Bill. He said that they were probing new clauses, so I assume that this is not really the Opposition's version of our part VII. If it is, the policy seems to be to increase the number of quangos all round, so we would end up with two separate bodies in each country—one for nature conservation and one for landscape and recreation. That is to be preceded by a wholly unnecessary abolition of the existing Countryside Commission, which means of course that there has to be an extra residuary body. On top of that, we would have a much enhanced joint committee. That looks like seven quangos in all, compared with the four proposed by the Government. I need hardly say that I do not think that that proposition is acceptable.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (M r. Bennett) spoke to his new clause 10. The Government and I share his desire that all obstructions should be removed from public rights of way. The Countryside Commission's campaign to clear all rights of way by the year 2000 is, of course, to be applauded. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for walking in the countryside and the ingenious devices that he has suggested in new clause 10 to bring the subject within the ambit of the Bill. However, the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for tackling what the hon. Gentleman sees as the deficiencies of present legislation. I am confident that the Countryside Council for Wales will give due weight to all access matters without the need for the organisational straitjacket proposed in the new clause.
The composition of the joint committee is addressed by amendments Nos. 107 and 150. On the latter, the Government have given an assurance that we shall introduce an amendment to achieve this purpose—so that the chairman of the joint committee will be appointed directly by the Secretary of State. The representation of Northern Ireland on the joint committee, to which the


hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred again, is yet another issue covered by Lord Carver's report. That point is covered by amendment No. 107. I cannot give a formal assurance that we shall amend the Bill as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we are sympathetic to Lord Carver's views on the subject and I very much hope that there will be a Government amendment in another place to meet that objective.
Amendment No. 137 would make co-operation and joint working with local authorities a principal function of the new agencies. There is no doubt that that will be highly desirable and, indeed, much is done at present with the local authorities by the NCC and the Countryside Commission, particularly the latter, whose programmes are frequently entirely reliant on the efforts of local councils in the countryside. As there is no difficulty in working in that fashion, I see no need to supplement the law as suggested by the amendment; nor would it be right to make that a principal objective when there are other partnerships—such as those with voluntary bodies, farmers, landowners and industry—which are equally important.
In Standing Committee, my hon. Friends gave several undertakings to consider items raised by hon. Members, and I should like to deal with them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who made an excellent supportive speech today, referred to licences for the ringing and nest recording scheme operated by the British Trust for Ornithology. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) expressed similar concern about possible administrative problems if the licences were to be issued separately by the three new councils.
This is an important point. The BTO's work provides essential data and, although we are not willing to compromise on the basic principle that territorial matters should fall to the council concerned, we are keen to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum. BTO ringers operate mainly under a general licence, but some individual licences are necessary. At present, applications for both types of licence are made by the BTO and it is difficult to imagine that the new councils will not continue with that arrangement. However, we believe that it would be sensible for them to co-ordinate their action on that work. We are therefore writing to the shadow chairmen asking, first, that they agree to continue using the good offices of the BTO and, secondly, that they nominate one of the councils to act as a co-ordinator for both the general and individual licences. Decisions on the licences would be taken by the appropriate council—that is an important point of principle—but they would liaise closely and applications would have to be made to only one body. We shall also ask that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has a similar arrangement with the NCC to that of the BTO, should also have the benefit of this one-stop shopping facility.
6.15 pm
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish raised a number of points. He suggested that community service orders should be used to enhance and conserve the countryside. I confirm that that matter has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home

Secretary. I confirm that the resource implications of access agreements for national parks will be considered at the appropriate point in their budgetary process.
The hon. Member for Gordon raised the important matter of marine conservation. I accept that this is a difficult subject, not because, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a hiatus in the legislation but because of the inherent difficulties in protecting marine areas. To cut a long story short, I accept that the designation process is rather laborious, but it reflects not only the voluntary principle enshrined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 but the different uses of, and rights that are held over, marine areas. One cannot simply put a fence around a marine nature reserve to protect it, so one has to negotiate with users and so on to come to a solution that will be respected by all. That inevitably takes time, but at the end of the day will ensure that the site is properly protected.
I echo the sentiments expressed earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Gould: We have had a useful and interesting debate, but I do not think that we can claim to have covered much, if any, new territory. The Opposition had hoped that the presence and interventions of, first, the Secretary of State for the Environment and, then, the Minister of State, Welsh Office and the remarks of other hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee would have carried us a little further forward by disclosing some of the Government's plans for the joint committee. I am afraid that our expectations have been dashed, because we are still very much where we were when the Committee concluded its deliberations. That is unfortunate, and it is a sad way to treat the House of Commons.
I very much take the point made by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) when he made the case for giving proper consideration to some of these matters, especially to giving proper weight to the Carver committee's recommendations. I have no quarrel with that argument, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it points firmly in the direction of not rushing forward, as the Government did, to dismember the NCC without consultation.
I suspect that the Secretary of State would have preferred, in his heart of hearts, to deal with the question of how best to organise nature conservancy throughout the country within the context of the White Paper which he is preparing. The fact that that is not now his preferred option is further evidence of the low expectations of the White Paper.
The disappointing aspect of the debate was that we did not hear anything more about the joint committee and the response to the Carver committee. We heard no comment about the increased costs that the new arrangements would necessarily produce. We heard no constructive comment on the central question which bedevilled the committee's deliberations—the real question of who would prevail in the event of a dispute. Those who were not members of the committee professed to think that that was of no importance, but I suspect that, if they were to consult the Under-Secretary, he would give them a different answer, with good reason. A lack of understanding of that crucial point marked the contribution of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
I was astonished at the cavalier way in which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) appeared to dismiss the


virtually unanimous view of Scottish voluntary conservation bodies who were worried about what was proposed. He accused some of us of being patronising, but I have not heard anything as patronising as that.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) was equally confused. He raised his long-term assumption, which he felt had somehow been displaced by the debate, that the Conservative party was the party of unionism. He may or may not be right, although I have my own view on it, but he overlooked the fact that the Conservative party is the party of major landowners and commercial interests; certainly it is not the party of nature conservation. The authority we have for that is no less than the Prime Minister herself, who dismissed all the people who were concerned about such issues as airy-fairy environmentalists.

Mr. Chris Patten: I just want to comment on that not entirely well informed prejudice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House about how the Labour Government expressed their concern for nature conservancy by referring us to the amount of money which they put into nature conservancy and how it compares with the record of this Administration.

Mr. Gould: I note that the Secretary of State did not dispute the remarks which I attributed to the Prime Minister, nor did he take the opportunity of commenting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—on the far more important point, which is the actual cost of his proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We have yet to hear from him, or from those who are yelling and barracking in their traditional fashion, whether the estimate of a £20 million increase in the budget is accurate. We have heard not a word on that.
Our purpose is to offer the Secretary of State yet one more chance. We are a forgiving and optimistic party, and we still hope that the Secretary of State will live to fight the battle. We have no great expectation, I am sorry to say, that he will win. I judge by the glimmer of appreciation on his face that he may still harbour some hope. We think tht he is still engaged in the battle. We hope that he is engaged in it on behalf of conservation to ensure that the Carver recommendations are brought forward in legislative form.
So far, he has lost, because his Cabinet colleagues have insisted that the grubby deal between the Scottish Office and Scottish landowners should be maintained; but, because we hope that he will fight the battle on behalf of nature conservation, we want to give him the chance to bring forward proposals in another place. For that reason alone, I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

INCREASED PROTECTION OF THE NORTH SEA

'(1) The Secretary of State shall draw up a plan to reduce the entry of harmful substances into the North Sea.

(2) The plan established under subsection (1) above shall include—

(a) measures to prohibit the dumping of sewage sludge from January 1st 1993;
(b) measures to achieve zero discharges of inputs harmful to the marine environment by January 1st 2000;

(c) measures to prohibit the dumping of flyash from January 1st 1991;
(d) measures to prohibit the dumping of industrial wastes from January 1st 1991;
(e) measures to limit discharges from shipping;
(f) measures to limit discharges from oil and gas platforms; and
(g) measures to regulate further the transport of hazardous substances and to introduce a register of accidents at sea which result in the entry of harmful substances into the marine environment.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause17—Marine conservation zones—
'(1) A Council shall, where it is of the opinion that any area of sea, or land adjacent to such area including land which is continuously or intermittntly covered by water, is in need of protection by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, prepare and monitor management plans for such area, and such area is to be designated as a Marine Conservation Zone.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a Council shall identify and delineate such a Marine Conservation Zone by reference to a plan and each plan shall have attached a short statement of the reasons why the Council considers the area to be in need of protection.
(3) The bodies listed in Schedule (Marine Conservation Zones advertising and relevant bodies) to this Act shall provide the relevant Council for their area any details of activities carried on by them or on their behalf as are required by the Council and shall after consultation with the Council agree a management plan.
(4) Where there is any proposed change in or intensification of such activities the bodies shall inform the Council and agree a new management plan if the Council considers that such a plan is necessary or desirable.
(5) If any body listed in Schedule (Marine Conservation Zones advertising and relevant bodies) fails to agree a management plan before the designation of a Marine Conservation Zone that body shall comply with an interim management plan drawn up by the Council for the period from the date of the designation until agreement is reached and in the absence of such agreement the interim management plan shall continue to have effect.
(6) In the event of an interim management plan not being superseded by a management plan within six months of the interim management plan coming into effect the Secretary of State shall, on application by either the Council or the Body to which the interim management plan applies, decide the contents of the management plan and the date from which it is to come into effect.
(7) Where the areas referred to in subsection (1) above fall within the area of more than one Council the Councils may act jointly in carrying out the duties conferred by this section.
(8) The provisions of Schedule (Marine Conservation Zones advertising and relevant bodies) shall have effect with regard to the publication of the plan and statement prepared under subsection (2) above.
(9) For the purposes of this section the areas of each Council shall extend to the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain and any part of Great Britain which is bounded by territorial waters shall be taken to include the territorial waters adjacent to that part.
(10) In this section "Council" means the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or the Countryside Council for Wales as the case may be and "Councils" shall be construed accordingly.'.


New clause 55—Retrieval of harmful substances from the marine environment—
'(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting the marine environment, the living resources which it supports, or human health or activities, he shall carry out or cause to have carried out operations to retrieve any harmful substances from the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters, or from any land adjoining the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters.
(2) Where operations are carried out under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may recover from the owner or master of the ship or ship's boat from which the harmful substances entered the sea any expenses reasonably incurred by him in carrying out such operations.'.
Amendment No. 105—a new schedule—'Marine Conservation Zones Advertising and Relevant Bodies
1. On designating a Marine Conservation Zone the Council or Councils if acting jointly shall publish details of the location of the zone by advertising the designation of the zone in the Gazette and also in at least one local newspaper circulating in the area in which the zone is situated, such advertisement to contain a short description of the extent and boundaries of the zone and the address at which a plan of the zone may be inspected and the hours during which it may be inspected.
2. In this Schedule "the Gazette" means

(a) If the zone is situated in whole or in part in England and Wales, the London Gazette;
(b) If the zone is situated in whole or in part in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette;

3. (1) The bodies to which section (Marine Conservation Zones) applies are:
Crown Estate Commissioners

Department of Transport
Department of Trade and Industry
Department of The Environment
Department of Energy
Department of Defence
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of Scotland
National Rivers Authority
Water Purification Boards
Sea Fisheries Committee
Trinity House
Local Authorities
Port and Harbour Authorities

and any other body which the Secretary of State may from time to time consider appropriate.
(2) In this Schedule, "Trinity House" means the Trinity House as defined in section 742 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.'.

Mr. Hughes: The purpose of new clause 9 is to increase the protection of the North sea—a most important issue. The purpose of new clause 17 is to establish marine conservation. New clause 55 is a linked clause, which would give the Secretary of State power to retrieve harmful substances from the marine environment. Marine conservation, the protection of the marine environment and, in particular, the protection of the North sea are rightly being given an important place in the debate. If we want evidence of how the Government are the environmental back sliders of Europe, we see that what they do does not live up to what they say. The way in which we, as a maritime country surrounded by the sea, protect our marine environment evidences the weakness of the Government's position.
New clause 9 contains a seven-part plan. If I were back in the law courts, as opposed to this court, I would frame

an indictment in which there were seven counts. At the end of the evidence there is no doubt that on a charge of failing to protect the North sea, the Government would be found guilty on each of the seven counts, which are that they have not adequately agreed to prohibit the dumping of sewage sludge, that they are not committed in any way to achieving zero discharge of inputs harmful to the marine environment in any reasonable or immediate period, that they have not committed themselves to ban the dumping of fly ash as they should have done and as it is necessary to do, that they are not committed adequately and urgently to prohibit the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea, that they are not committed to limit discharges from shipping into the North sea, that they are not committed to proper measures to limit discharges from oil and gas platforms into the North sea, and that they are not committed sufficiently to regulate the transport of hazardous substances and to maintain a register of accidents at sea as a result of which harmful substances enter the marine environment.
One tragedy of Britain is that we regularly put at risk not just the land, which is our responsibility, but the large expanses of water around us over which we have significant influence. Over the years the North sea and the Irish sea—although the debate is not about the Irish sea—have become dumping grounds for much of the country's waste. The worst evidence against us as a nation is that on many of the seven charges in the indictment we are the only country which is committing the offences. Other countries have long since stopped doing so.
Taking the seven counts in turn, on sewage sludge the new clause has been tabled because we believe that until the Government stop embarrassing the country at international conferences and become committed to urgent deadlines that make it clear that the environment comes first and not second to other interests, it is necessary for us to establish the deadlines. The presumption is that that should be done sooner rather than later. The Government have never adequately rebutted that presumption.
We are the only country in the world to continue to dump sewage sludge in the North sea. The amount is not small; last year it was 3·5 million tonnes, much of it contaminated by heavy metals. That sewage sludge probably contains viruses because, unlike other countries, we do not pasteurise our sewage. I understand that there is one small pasteurisation plant in north Yorkshire, and only last month in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Minister said that this country has no plans to require more extensive use of such facilities.
There is some confusion about the urgency of the problem. On the one hand, Ministers from the Department of the Environment have said in answer to a letter from one of my colleagues:
We do not permit the dumping of harmful industrial waste at sea".
Yet in an answer to me the following month, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made the clear admission that shellfish were being examined for viruses, which have no doubt developed because of the dumping of sludge, not in a single isolated site, but in many sites off our coasts.
6.30 pm
This is a serious problem, of enormous scale. Perhaps the best people to judge its seriousness are the fishermen who fish in the North sea and who have to work in a foul environment. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accepts that those fishermen have complained regularly that they become ill as a result of fishing near sludge disposal sites. Although the Ministry has taken those complaints seriously, it has not yet done anything about the problem. It is a tragedy that fishing is now dangerous in much of the North sea because of the amount of sludge that we have dumped there, which directly affects the people who use the sea.
It is no good saying that we are beginning to deal with the problem adequately by sifting out the plastic and sewage sludge because, although it is true that there is some screening, it is not comprehensive. Another recent written answer from MAFF made it clear that there is now screening at one of the treatment plants, but not at the other.
It is a sordid business and a sordid sea. Fishermen regularly discover that they are fishing through floating layers of unlimited faeces. On 24 February this year, an article described the sea off Tyneside, which is not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith):
When fishermen's nets are hauled in off the Tyne, they are dense with treated faeces and thousands of condoms and sanitary towels. 'It can turn the stomach of the most experienced seaman', said Ray Morse, skipper of the Conduan, based in North Shields.
Next comes the important evidence:
Thirty years ago, fishermen had bumper catches—but these have all gone. Last week, one trawler netted two boxes in five hours.
Trawlermen are now considering fishing up to 100 miles out at sea, compared with a few miles five years ago.
That harms the fishing industry because many vessels are not equipped to travel as far as is now necessary to fish for the catches upon which the fishermen depend for their living.
The Government have said that it is all right to deal with the problem by 1998, but that is not sufficient. They should show greater seriousness and adopt a much earlier deadline. We have proposed a deadline of the beginning of 1993.
I hope that the Government realise that this matter is now of significant interest, not only to the fishing and farming industries, but to the whole community. Just before the North sea conference earlier this year, I received not only the clearly prompted, standard-form letters from people who are members of environmental organisations, but letters that had been personally written. I received one such letter from a constituent who I remember as a troublesome youth a few years ago. He is now in prison and wrote to me, having been persuaded of the importance of international environmental issues. This is the first letter that I have received from him since he has been in prison and it is worth noting that, although prisoners write to their Members of Parliament about many things, they do not normally write about international environmental issues. It is interesting that having had a chance to reflect on his life and condition, the way in which we treat our environment was the issue on which that prisoner chose to write to me.
We should attack the problem urgently. It is no good saying that we can put it off for nearly another decade.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: We have heard the hon. Gentleman speak at some length about the problems caused by the dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea. The essence of politics is that one not only criticises, but comes up with a solution to the problem. The hon. Gentleman has said that 3·5 million tonnes of sewage sludge are dumped in the North sea—that is an awful lot of sewage sludge—so what would he do about it right now? Would he spread it on the land? Would he build incinerator plants? What would he do about the problem between now and January 1993?

Mr. Hughes: It is generally accepted that we should dispose of what there is where we can control it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that one criticism of what we are doing to spoil our marine environment is that we have adopted what is basically an "out of sight, out of mind" disposal solution. It is believed that if things are removed from visibility, they do not matter and that the problem flows away when it is invisible.
Sewage sludge should be treated and screened properly and we should have the necessary processes for that. We should ensure that we have alternative land sites rather than sea sites. That point has been argued consistently. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the problem is not confined to sewage sludge, but relates to everything that we export off the coasts of our country. It is no good simply saying that we should send our waste or burn our toxic materials offshore; that can do just as much, if not more, harm at sea as on the land.
Since I have been a Member of the House, it has been the general view of the Government—and everybody else—that disposals should take place where one can see what one is doing and where one can control and monitor the effects of the disposal of anything that is toxic or harmful.
Our second proposal relates to achieving by the end of the decade zero discharges of inputs that are harmful to the marine environment. Although that is not a short time scale, it is important that we have such a target, because at the moment we have only an inadequate list of materials for which we have targets.
Our third proposal relates to the dumping of fly ash, which causes a particular problem because some people claim—and the Government argue this case—that such dumping does not cause any harm to the marine environment because it is inert. In addition, it is argued that there are no land-based alternatives. However. there is also a serious dispute about whether we are in breach of the international requirements on fly ash. There is no doubt that fly ash will continue to be created, but the problem is what we do with it. Another dispute relates to the implications of such dumping both now and in the future.
We believe that the commitment that Britain made in the agreement that was signed at the 1987 international conference was to phase out the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea by 31 December 1989. We further believe that fly ash dumping breaks the terms of that agreement because it harms the marine environment by killing the sea bed. Alternative disposal methods are available, such as using landfill sites or using energy conservation measures to reduce the amount that needs to be dumped. Furthermore, such dumping cannot be justified by the arguments that the Prime Minister and other Ministers regularly use, such as the prior justification


procedure argument—that there is no practical alternative on the one hand and, on the other hand, that harm is not caused.
The tragedy is that the north-east coast of Britain is the only place in Europe where fly ash is dumped at sea. Furthermore, the amount that is dumped at sea is small and is therefore capable of elimination. In simple scientific terms, it effectively renders the sea bed inert. It is not as solid as, but it is like putting down, a concrete particle substance, and certainly much life is killed by being smothered with fly ash. There is a great problem in monitoring the effects of what we do and the extent of fly ash dumping. I hope, therefore, that the Government realise that it is not that we pretend that there is no problem—there is an issue, because we create fly ash as a result of burning coal—but there are alternative disposal solutions which we have advocated and which are perfectly feasible and proper.
We also propose measures to prohibit the dumping of industrial wastes from the beginning of next year. This is where the Government are at their most vulnerable. The Government said that they would phase out the dumping of industrial wastes by the end of 1989, but they have granted licences which take us beyond the end of 1989 to the end of 1992 and potentially into 1993. What they did was made worse by the way in which they argued their case. They said that they were ending dumping—there were great press releases and great declarations of intent—but then they talked about exceptions. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), they admitted the extent of the exceptions. My hon. Friend's question was:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many licences to dump chemical industrial wastes in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and how many will continue to be in force;
(2) what percentage of chemical industrial wastes dumped in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and what percentage will continue.
The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), was:
It is my intention that all licences to dispose of industrial wastes in the North sea covered by the 1987 North sea declaration will be terminated by 31 December 1992. For two of the wastes, however, involving 77 per cent. of the current total annual licensed tonnage, it might not be technically feasible to meet this deadline. I will extend the licences for these last two wastes into 1993 only if absolutely necessary on technical grounds and for the shortest possible part of that year."—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 853.]
It is not acceptable for the Government to say that they are willing to sign up to get rid of wastes by 1989 only for us to discover that they have exceptions which not just prove the rule but break it.

Mr. Summerson: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for giving way to me a second time. One of the exceptions that he talks about is ICI, which employs thousands of people. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, ICI would have to close down its works and sack thousands of its employees. What answer would the hon. Gentleman give them?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is being very naive. That is the same

argument as is used about Sellafield: that closing down Sellafield would cause wholesale unemployment among its large work force in Cumbria. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is quite within the capacity of ICI's research and development to deal with these issues and to solve the problems. If firms such as ICI are required to do so, they have the capacity. ICI is one of the most eminent private sector enterprises in the world and would be able and willing to solve the problems; it is a matter of Government will and requirement. Second, many people currently employed in ICI plants in the north-east could use their skills to bring about more environmentally acceptable processes of chemical production such as we discussed only on Monday of this week.
This is a very important point to make about environmental issues generally: there need be no unemployment as a result of environmental improvement. One obvious example is that all the energy that we use and waste and all the potential for conservation that we possess could be turned to reducing much harmful energy consumption and employing people to make sure that we conserve energy rather than waste it.

Mr. Tim Devlin: My constituents will be extremely pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has to say, because it is their jobs that will be at stake. Will the hon. Gentleman address his mind, before making immediate demands for a complete clean-up of chemical and other industries, which are already making a significant effort to this end, to the time scale? He is right to say that research will yield technically feasible options for cleaning up waste streams and so forth; it is a question of how long one has in which to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) is absolutely right: if all these waste streams had to be stopped tomorrow morning, ICI, Monsanto and a number of other companies would be stopped tomorrow morning.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friends and I do not propose that the deadline for implementation of these policies should be today or tomorrow. If hon. Members will look at the list, they will see that there are different deadlines for different requirements. What is more, it is not as if the Government have just come into office—they have been in office for over 10 years—and we do not find it acceptable that late in the day they are prepared to have the latest deadline of any of our European neighbours and then to grant exemptions and assent that that is sufficient. It is no good always postponing making the environment an immediate priority. That is unacceptable. While we must accept what is technically feasible, there are ways, technically and politically, of ensuring that imminent deadlines, as they are set out in our proposals—and we are quite willing to have them debated—are met. But in default of a Government commitment to honour obligations that they have entered into and to uphold deadlines that others find acceptable, we propose these as realistic and technically attainable.
I would like to deal more briefly with the last three categories, discharges from shipping, from oil and gas platforms and from the transport of hazardous substances. All these are matters which are capable of immediate resolution. Sometimes there is intentional discharge into the North sea. Some vessels deliberately leak fuel. There is


a regular practice of throwing rubbish overboard. Such practices are more easily controlled at sea than on land, and people in charge of vessels are far more likely to be able to enforce controls.
Inasmuch as we use the North sea, as we properly should, for commerce, industry, travel, energy exploration and the rest, we have a responsibility to make sure that we use it properly and wisely. Looking back over the quotations of the Government's good faith and the practical implications of the Government's policy, we have seen a tragedy writ very large indeed over the past 10 years.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was brazen enough at the end of last year to say that the United Kingdom was fully meeting international agreements reached unanimously by North sea countries. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment and now the Minister for Health, said in the autumn of last year that the United Kingdom
places a high priority on implementing the decisions adopted by the two North sea conferences".
Perhaps the most amazingly brazen statement of all—no prizes for guessing its author—was back in the spring of 1988:
The Government has moved more quickly than any other North sea country in following up the declaration"—
that is the declaration of the North sea conference in 1987—
with proposals for action.
No prizes forguessing that the words were said by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), then Secretary of State for the Environment.
We say that the Government have been complacent for long enough and it is about time that the North sea had the benefit of protection from the people who use it most.
I turn briefly to our proposal for marine conservation zones around our shores. Parliament legislated for marine nature reserves in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It has not been a great success. Only one area has been designated, the island of Lundy. It is very beautiful and it is proper that it should be designated, but this initiative has hardly been followed round our coasts. The reason why we have had only one area designated is that the bureaucracy involved in getting everyone to agree to declare a marine nature reserve has proved in practice to be relatively, if not entirely, unworkable.
It is possible to declare a site of special scientific interest. Indeed, such sites can be designated to include tidal and coastal areas. However, they do not cover areas below low tide. They extend to different watermarks in Scotland and England. Perhaps most important, they fail to prevent damaging activities in tidal and marine habitats.
There are many reasons why, above all, we should have a regime that provides protection for the marine habitat and environment which is just as strong as the protection for the shore. Our coastal waters are the resting place and breeding grounds of enormous numbers of species of global significance. Those of us who have been privileged enough to spend holidays in Orkney, in my case, the north-east coast of Scotland or the north-east coast of England are aware that enormous numbers of sea birds use those coastal waters. About 4·25 million sea birds breed around our North sea coasts. It is about 10 per cent. of the

world's population of some species and the majority of some wonderful species such as the fulmar, the Arctic skua and the puffin.
We must make sure that we preserve the marine environment in a way that we are failing to do at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and I propose that one of the conservancy councils, the status of which we discussed earlier, should have the power to designate a marine area that is in need of protection by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features a marine conservation zone. I challenge the Government to say that our proposal is not both practical and urgent.
The last of our new clauses is new clause 55. It is a rescue clause. It is a simple proposal. I hope that the Government will accept it. It says:
Where it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting the marine environment, the living resources which it supports, or human health or activities, he shall carry out or cause to have carried out operations to retrieve any harmful substances from the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters, or from any land adjoining the sea in United Kingdom controlled waters.
If those who had caused the pollution were to blame they would be required to pay the price of retrieving any substances from the sea.
Sadly, for too long Britain has been regarded—I apologise for using a sexist phrase—as the dirty man of Europe. We have turned our attention to making sure that our backyards are environmentally clean but we have not made sure that our national backyard is environmentally clean. The worst evidence of that is the North sea. My hon. Friends and I hope that the House will accept the new clause.

Mr. Devlin: I have a long-term interest in the North sea as one who comes from the north-east of England and who has taken an active interest in ecology since I was at school, when I established a society called the Survival Society to look after the ecology of the world. We set up our own school paper recycling project, a model which, 10 years later, has been copied all over Britain. At that time I was young and innocent, and I was a member of Friends of the Earth. Just as people say, "If you are not a socialist when you are 20 you do not have a heart, and if you are not a Conservative by the time you are 40 you do not have a head," perhaps if one is not a member of Friends of the Earth at the age of 20 one does not have a heart, and if one has not seen sense by the time one is 30, one certainly does not have a brain.
I came to represent Stockton, South with great interest, because I thought that it would give me a unique opportunity to get to grips with some of the problems of the North sea. I was worried about what would happen to rubbish dumped in the North sea. Many of my constituents fish in the North sea and they have told me of the disgusting problem, for example, of pulling nets out of deep sludge from sewage outfalls in the North sea. In respect of that part of his speech, I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The hon. Member also referred to the problem of ash which comes predominantly from inefficient incineration and to the major problem of sewage sludge. I have maintained some links with organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and they have sent


me their briefs. Last August I had an opportunity to go aboard the Rainbow Warrior when it docked at La Rochelle in France.
I found it interesting that the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey closely followed the Greenpeace brief called "Reasons why the UK is still the Dirty Man of Europe" issued on 6 March 1990. It sets out seven areas in which the United Kingdom is still the dirty man of Europe. When I received that brief, I was worried about some of the issues that it threw up. I immediately wrote to Paul Horsman, the United Kingdom toxics divisional director of Greenpeace, to ask him some questions about it. I shall deal with some of the points raised.
Paul Horsman is the Max Headroom of Greenpeace. He does not seem to exist. He is a name on the bottom of notepaper and at the top of various newspapers published by Greenpeace. When one writes to him one eventually receives any number of letters from people who sign "per pro Paul Horsman". If hon. Members are looking for an interesting way to spend their term in Parliament, perhaps they should find someone from Greenpeace to work for them as their secretary. They can then spend their five years in Torremolinos or whatever place takes their fancy.
On 9 January, I wrote to Mr. Horsman about the pollution of the North sea. I asked whether he would prefer landfill or incineration to the dumping of sewage sludge. On 12 January 1990, he wrote back, not on that subject but enclosing a circular on another matter. On 22 January, I wrote to him asking if he intended to reply to my letter of 9 January. Someone acknowledged my letter saying that he was out of the country.
I wrote a further reminder. On 6 February I received a further circular addressed "Dear Member of Parliament". On 22 February, I wrote a further reminder. On 26 April, I received a reply. The House may be interested to hear some of the points in reply. I am sure that its position is the same as that of the Liberals, because they follow the Greenpeace brief. It says:
Greenpeace is not only opposed to dumping waste at sea (a practice ended by most other European countries), but also to incineration—an acknowledged environmentally damaging waste disposal technology.
With great respect to that organisation, which commands significant support throughout Britain, it is not true by any means that incineration is acknowledged to be environmentally damaging. It is the only way that we have at present of dealing with PCBs.
The letter went on to discuss the two incinerators on Teesside and Tyneside which are to burn not only sewage sludge but hazardous waste. On that point Greenpeace is absolutely right. One cannot burn sewage sludge with industrial waste. No one has the technology. Even the chemical industry looks sceptically on whether sewage sludge can be burned with chemical waste. Greenpeace went on to say:
Incineration of industrially contaminated sewage sludge or of sewage sludge with hazardous waste can only increase the residue problems.
The problem with that is that household sewage, that horrible stuff that goes down the drains to our sewage farms, is polluted by many different substances such as heavy metals and many other contaminants. In the past people thought that that was due to the fact that some

industry was dumping chemicals down the drain. It now looks as if many of the chemicals that go down the drain are from ordinary household uses.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will recall that, on Monday night, when we were discussing the chemical industry, I pointed out that all sorts of chemicals are used every day in bleach, oven cleaners, and nail varnish. They all go down the drain and find their way out into the North sea through that drainage system. It is not a simple matter to take the industrial waste out of our sewage to produce the so-called "clean" sewage. The solution proposed by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth is to implement such clean technology and production. I am minded to question what they mean by the clean production of sewage, but I shall not go into that now.
7 pm
It is worth while considering some of the products that go down the drains and become sewage. There is a certain product whose contents are outrageous and I know that the House will be extremely concerned about it. It contains chemicals such as acetone, acetaldehyde, methyl butrate, ethyl caproaie, hexy acetate, methanol acrolein and even some stuff called crotonaldehyde. How could anyone dose up with a product that contains so many chemicals? One would think that, at the very least, the producers would be forced to print those ingredients on the product.
That would be rather a problem, however, because the product I have described is a fresh strawberry, naturally grown, with no man-made ingredients. The next time hon. Members see a reasonably ripe strawberry on their plate, they might like to think about what is going on in that little chemical reactor. Strawberries end up in our drains.
I agree that a waste reduction audit is necessary—I am sure that many hon. Members agree about that. If we can reduce the amount of waste that industry and others create in the environment in the first place, it will help to solve the problem. I saw representatives of the chemical industry today and asked them about the problems associated with clean technology and clean production and whether such production would be possible. One can never say what might be possible as a result of new research, but the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey suggested that all that was needed was for a company the size of ICI to turn its technological effort to waste minimisation and, hey presto, the whole problem would be solved in a matter of moments.
It is important to inform the House of the environmental objectives of the Chemical Industries Association; every chemical-producing company in the country is a signatory to those objectives. The CIA states:
The chemical industry accepts its duty to manage its operations so that they are socially acceptable as well as complying with all relevant statutory provisions.
It is a primary responsibility of the management of the chemical industry to protect the environment as an integral part of good business practice.
The problem of waste is being addressed by the chemical industry, and in the past 10 years the clean up of the River Tees has been dramatic. We must now look at further ways in which to clean up the environment.
If we do not intend to continue to dump sewage and other things into the sea, we must find alternatives. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey came up to the north-east he would learn that planning applications have been made for two toxic waste incineraters—one in Tyneside at Howden, the other in Portrack, near to my


constituency. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), can confirm that there is massive public disapproval of those schemes and great opposition to them.
We have given a commitment to clean up the North sea, but it appears that we are riot prepared to meet the environmental price for doing so by finding an alternative. There are two alternatives to dumping. One can put waste in landfill sites, but we are desperately short of landfill sites, and problems are also associated with them because of the escape of methane and other gases.
The only other option currently available is expensive and politically sensitive—incineration. The disposal of waste through incineration is extremely expensive, as is disposal in landfill sites. The chemical industry already has a major incentive to cut down its waste streams wherever possible because of that expense. I recently visited Teesside with the all-party chemical industries group and I know that work to reduce such waste streams is already going on throughout the industry.
Some might argue that to tackle the problem all one needs to do is disconnect our industries from the sewerage system. If that happened, some of our smaller companies would go out of business immediately. We must address that problem. We do not want such companies to dump chemicals into the drains, but we want them to remain in business so that they can provide us with a vibrant pharmaceutical and chemical industry in the next century.
If one dumps sewage on landfill sites, there is bound to be some run off. It has been suggested that such sewage could he put on the land, but supply would quickly outstrip demand. Greenpeace has also informed me that it is possible to compost sludge with straw and substitute it for some of the uses of peat in agriculture and horticulture. That may be possible, but I am advised that that practice would deal with only a small amount of sewage.
It is important to consider waste disposal in its widest perspective. Other European states have demanded that sewage dumping at sea should end by 1995, and I know that the Government want to achieve that. The difficulty arises in finding alternatives to such dumping, especially as they are costly and politically sensitive.
The recently published "Interim Report on the Quality Status of the North Sea" said that the United Kingdom ranks second to the Netherlands as the largest contributor of the most dangerous heavy metals that go into the North sea. Some might argue that our contribution is more significant than that of the Dutch, as their figure includes products from Switzerland, France, Luxembourg and West Germany. I understand that the report has since cast doubt on the validity of the figures given, and that further studies are planned.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is correct to say that the United Kingdom is now the only country dumping fly ash in the sea. That practice is scheduled to end in 1992. The companies concerned are actively seeking alternatives, but, once again, they face problems in obtaining planning permission and the necessary capital.
Waste disposal needs a great deal more research. It is simple for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others to get up to say what is wrong with current practices in the United Kingdom. The research that backs up the statistical charges of inefficiency by the

Government is often poorly founded; we need better facts and figures before we can point to this country as the dirty man of Europe.
Industry throughout the north-east, where most of the pollution comes from, is making a significant effort to address the problems and it is making inroads. I hope that the House will urge that industry to do as much as it can in the future and will not accept the new clause, which is ill-founded and in need of greater research.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I accept that industry is making great efforts. It is so far ahead in the technology of waste management that we could, as we did in Victorian times, export our technology and knowledge. In common with energy efficiency, waste technology is a worthwhile area in which our industries should take a lead.
I represent nearly 50 miles of the North sea coastline, and many of my constituents work on the sea in the fishing industry. Many others who live near the coast feel strongly about the existing level of pollution. The public row to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) referred, about the proposed incinerators, is a further aspect of public anxiety about pollution in the north east.
All those various types of pollution have aroused concern and my constituents have complained about them for many years, but there has been little response. All of a sudden, other people are interested, it is on national television screens and the Greenpeace ship and inflatables are there for all to see, interfering with fly ash dumping and other activities. There are two possible reactions to that. Sometimes, people resent it and say, "We have known about that for a long time," or say, as many do, "Thank goodness that somebody else is at last taking an interest in our problem."
All the various types of dumping have aroused deep concern. Pharmaceutical wastes, which place into the North sea substances that can reappear in the food chain, particularly through fish, are a source of great anxiety. The dumping of fly ash provides a solid bed in a concentrated area of the North sea in the middle of important fishing grounds. The fishing industry in Northumberland faces difficult times for a series of reasons, and to have the accumulating effect of fly ash dumping in the middle of that adds to the problems.
The fly ash comes from north-east power stations that use the coal from north-east pits, particularly at Blyth and Stella. Nobody in the north-east wants to see an end to coal-fired electricity generation in the north-east, but that is a problem that can be solved; National Power clearly recognises that it can be, as it must, because the Government have committed it to solving the problem.
It has been suggested in my constituency that it is absurd that, when lorries are trundling into Blyth day after day with the products of opencast sites, they cannot be filled with fly ash to take back and put in the hole from which the opencast material has come. When so many holes are being dug in the north-east, there is surely some prospect of filling some of them with the very fly ash produced by the coal from the north-east. There is clearly some scope for the intelligent use of opportunities that are already available.
Sewage sludge and sewage output contribute greatly to the problems faced by fishermen in the north-east, and early action is clearly required. As well as all the factors


mentioned in the debate, there are also problems of colliery waste tipping and polluted beaches. Such problems exist at Lynemouth in Northumberland. That is basically the same problem that exists on Durham beaches and is deeply depressing for those who know what those beaches used to look like.
There is a complex and interlocking chain of problems. The waste is tipped from the Lynemouth-Ellington colliery complex, which is of great employment importance in the region, and supplies an aluminium smelter. Some of the proposed ways of dealing with the complex problem might not solve it, particularly when one takes into account the possible rise in sea levels and the global warming effect. We may lose the whole lot, including the smelter, if there is an incursion from the sea into the area where this is taking place. It requires careful management.
There has been a limited commitment of Government funds to a possible future scheme to solve the colliery dumping problem at Lynemouth. That is clearly not enough, and the scheme first produced will be inadequate. I hope for continued and more expensive Government involvement in whatever scheme is most likely to end the dumping and secure the future of the Ellington colliery complex and smelter for as long as possible. It is obviously an efficient arrangement to have a colliery and a smelter working side by side, but it will be better if we can control the waste management from it more effectively than has been done so far.
Much more progress has been made with all these matters since someone started to set timetables. My hon. Friends are keen on the amendments, because they strengthen and tighten those timetables. It is amazing that this was allowed to continue for so long without any significant improvement, until we became involved in international obligations to meet deadlines. That leads me to believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are right to table amendments seeking an earlier achievement of those targets.

Mr. Morley: I shall touch on a few points that have been raised in the debate. The Opposition give their broad support to the principles put forward by the Liberal Democrats. We are concerned about one or two matters, such as the time-scale laid down for the phasing out of sea dumping.
It is fair to say, as did the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that a time-scale focuses the mind towards working towards the set date. It is also fair to say that the Government have given commitments that they will work to dates, but they have then reneged on them. Those commitments should have been given on the understanding that the Government would honour them, not renege on by them extending the deadlines beyond those previously given at North sea conferences.
There is no doubt that our record on sea dumping is one of the worst in Europe. There have been 10 years of inaction on dealing with raw sewage going into our seas from pipelines and sewage sludge. I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). One cannot simply switch off industrial effluent tomorrow because of the impact it would have on the industries

involved and jobs. However, we should work towards that. ICI has said that if it had been given a tighter programme by the Government, it would have adjusted its capital investment programme to meet the deadlines and that it could have phased out the dumping of industrial effluent earlier if the Government had laid on the line more clearly what was expected. The Department of Trade and Industry seems inactive when it comes to working with industry and trying to assist it in finding alternatives such as recycling effluent and reducing the amount of effluent that goes into our water courses and sea.
Some of the deadlines in the Liberal Democrat new clause are more easily met than others. There is no doubt that there are quick alternatives to dumping fly ash in the North sea. Apart from the points that have rightly been made about its effect on sterilising the sea bed, it also tends to solidify into large lumps and causes enormous damage to fishermen's gear when they catch their trawls in the lumps of fly ash. They have had no financial compensation from the people dumping fly ash in the sea and damaging their gear, and I believe that the people responsible should be liable for that.
It is, at the very least, most unpleasant for those catching fish in our seas to trawl up filth from raw sewage because of the sewage dumping that takes place. Fish is one of the few foods that, without doubt, is healthy and good for people. The Government should give greater priority to ensuring that the quality of that product is maintained at its present high standards.
We support the concept of marine conservation zones. We are sorry that there is only one designated marine nature reserve. The problem seems to be the tortuous consultation procedure that must be carried out. That is why we are not meeting our EC commitments to protect important sea bed sites.
In Committee I moved an amendment on behalf of the Opposition calling for a national environmental audit to include the whole of the coastline to look at the organic matter that goes into our coast and the parts of our coastline that need particular support and attention because they are under threat. I was sorry that the Liberal Democrat spokesman voted with the Government against that amendment, because I felt that that was a poor position to adopt—

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there has been a change of roles since then, when a colleague of mine took the view that the amendment was a good idea but somewhat impractical. No one wants less knowledge about what we are doing to our marine environment and coastline; it is a matter of how we go about protecting them.

Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurances and I recognise that there has been a change of responsibilities—that may be for the better. But we believe that we need a national overview of the environment. I do not want to re-run the arguments about that, but we believe that a lack of such an overview of conservation is one of the fundamental weaknesses in part VII of the Bill. I am sure that we shall return to that matter later in the Bill's progress.
Finally, I pay tribute to the conservation work that fishermen have done. Recently I was in Plymouth talking to members of the south-west region of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and I was


impressed by the steps that local fishermen had taken to protect the sea bed—for instance, a voluntary ban on French dredging for scallops. They, above all people, recognise the need to conserve our sea beds and to control what goes on to them.
We do not disagree with the idea of polluters paying the recovery costs of harmful substances. In Committee, we moved an amendment calling for a fine and for the confiscation of vessels held responsible for dumping poisonous substances in the sea. deliberately releasing oil into it or washing their tanks at sea. Because of the costs of waste disposal and the transportation, there are enormous profits to be had by people who take the risk of breaking the law by washing tanks at sea, thereby saving turnaround times for oil tankers, or by those who deliberately push toxic substances over the side even though they have been paid to take them to a site at which they can be properly disposed of. I believe that the Government recognise this and I hope that they will consider strengthening the penalties, at least those for clean-up costs. We go one step further and ask the Government also to consider confiscating ships that break the law, because of the serious consequences of their actions.
We accept the thrust of the arguments on the new clause and the sincerity with which they were expressed, but we believe that some of the deadlines are not very realistic. We should like to hear a little more from the Liberal Democrats about how they would be met before giving our full support to the idea.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I welcome this chance to debate the marine environment, because the Government are committed to protecting it and to reducing still further the discharge of dangerous substances into the North sea and the other seas around our coasts. However, I cannot accept new clause 9, because it will not take us more quickly to that objective.
The new clause is something of a random mixture of general intentions and arbitrary targets, strung together with no consideration of priorities for action to protect our seas—priorities which have marked the approach of successive North sea conferences, which have rightly focused on the dangerous substances reaching the sea, mainly through rivers, and then agreed the means to reduce them.
At The Hague conference in March agreement was reached on 36 substances for which reductions of 50 per cent. or more will be sought by a deadline of 1995; for four substances, a more ambitious target of a 70 per cent. reduction was set. The United Kingdom is well on the way to meeting those objectives. These figures, and our achievements to date, are contained in the United Kingdom's national action plan on North sea discharges, which was published on 5 March. So I do not disagree much with new clause 9(1).
The differences between us arise in subsection (2), which contains an arbitrary revision of the time scales negotiated and agreed upon at The Hague conference after full consideration of the practical realities involved. Sewage sludge dumping, about which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke at some length, accounts for only about 1 per cent. of dangerous substances reaching the North sea. River-borne pollution is by far and away the most potent source of

pollution. But we have agreed to phase out sewage sludge dumping by 1998. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey must face up to the practicalities of his time scale, which would seek to phase it out within three years. The engineering and technical complexities of finding alternative means of disposal of 30 per cent. of the sewage sludge arising in the United Kingdom are great.
The reason why we have so much sludge to get rid of is that we treat more of our household sewage than any other country in Europe does. So we are talking about large volumes of waste, and it must be recognised that it can be disposed of in only three ways: into the earth, on the land or into the sea.
I should have greater respect for the hon. Gentleman's drastic timetable if I did not know that if someone wanted to construct an incinerator in or near his constituency he would be one of the first to object. We must face the fact that no alternative means of disposal is welcomed by or pleasant for those living nearby. Even when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would not admit that these alternatives are politically, socially and technologically difficult.
I have exactly the same objection to the hon. Gentleman's other time scales—

Mr. Simon Hughes: As it happens, when there was a proposal to build, on the boundary of my constituency, a combined heat and power plant that would burn waste, I and my colleagues supported it. If the Minister checks the record he will find that whenever we have debated the disposal of waste I and my colleagues have argued that land-based disposal is better, and we have supported the Government when they have followed that line, because such disposal is more easily monitored. It is more important to deal with the toxicity of the waste beforehand so that the potential dangers are lessened. We have consistently refused to take the NIMBY approach, by contrast with some of the Minister's predecessors in the Department.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am delighted—as, I am sure, Thames Water will be—to hear that the hon. Gentleman might not take a negative view if it was proposed to build an incinerator in or near his constituency to deal with the sludge from it which now all flows into the North sea.
The technical complexities of dealing with industrial waste and fly ash are also great. We are dealing with large quantities of dilute chemicals. When pressed, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that he did not want to shut down these industries overnight and that his time scales would give some leeway. His new clause would set a time scale of less than eight months, whereas in realistic negotiations with the companies concerned we are setting a time scale that would take us up to 1992, or in two cases a possible continuation into the early months of 1993. That is a demanding time scale and anything else would put jobs and the industries involved at serious risk.
7.30 pm
I emphasise that we are not in breach of undertakings given at the second North sea conference. The industrial wastes being deposited in the North sea are not significantly harmful and we have presented evidence to that effect to the Oslo commission. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the part of his new clause that calls for zero discharges of harmful substances by 2000. My hon.


Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) rightly said that that was entirely unrealistic because we are dealing with a wide range of wastes—domestic, industrial and agricultural—some of which contain trace elements of contaminating substances, such as lead from pipes or from roadside dust. We also have a legacy from our past activities in mining.
All that means that whatever we do there will always be small quantities of harmful substances running off land into rivers and, therefore, to the North sea. We cannot simply wave a magic wand to try to get those discharges down to zero. We must patiently negotiate with our partners a realistic series of priorities and time scales to deal with dangerous substances. That is what we signed up to do at The Hague conference and in a few weeks we shall publish a detailed guidance note on how we shall implement The Hague conference declaration.
New clause 55 seeks to deal with pollution from ships. I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey says, but I assure him that his new clause is not necessary because we already have in place a speedy and effective system for dealing with pollution incidents. Hon. Members may recall the efforts of the French and United Kingdom authorities to recover dangerous substances from the motor vessel Perintis which sank in the western part of the English channel last year. Those efforts showed the effectiveness of the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit which received advice from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and dealt with the matter. The Royal Navy managed to recover a major part of the shipment of pesticides. That shows that we have in place the means of dealing with such problems and new clause 55 will not add to the powers that are already available under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 as supplemented by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) Intervention Order 1980.
Some hon. Members spoke about the need to protect, and in some cases set up, marine conservation zones. I am sympathetic to that view, but I draw the attention of the House to the procedures that already exist for setting up marine reserves under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is not possible to draw lines on maps and say that the area delineated is a conservation zone. Patient consultation with those involved is required.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) complained about the time that it has taken to set up the Lundy island reserve. I think that he will understand that we must take fully into account those who live and work in such areas. In many cases we are talking about fragile local economies and we must get the wholehearted co-operation of fishermen, those who make their living along the shorelines, and those who live in such areas, even if that takes some time. I remind the House that the means exist for protecting our marine environment. I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not think that there is as much common ground between the Minister and my party on the matter of dealing with harmful discharges as there is between us on the other matters. I hope that he will look again at the matter of marine conservation zones. People are disappointed that only one, Lundy island, has been declared under the 1981 Act. My new clause is a practical way to deal with important sites. I hope that the Government will respond later in another place and will agree with us on that.
In speaking about new clause 9, the Minister said that we have mixed general intentions and arbitrary targets. The Government have a policy of general intentions and targets and there are dates to which the Government have subscribed. The difference between us is that we say the Government are going too slowly. We could go more quickly and the environmental targets that we urge are much more justifiable than those that the Government have so far negotiated. The evidence shows that on all the occasions when there has been a negotiated agreement, Britain has argued for a later date while everybody else has argued for an earlier one. If the Minister wants more evidence of the fact that the Government are dragging their feet, he should look at the decisions to which the United Kingdom has been a party.
For those reasons, I and my hon. Friends ask that new clause 9, which stresses the urgency of measures to protect the North sea, be put to a Division. I ask hon. Members to support us.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 178.

Division No. 190]
[7.36 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Beith, A. J.
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Kennedy, Charles


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Meale, Alan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Pike, Peter L.


Cohen, Harry
Primarolo, Dawn


Crowther, Stan
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Eastham, Ken
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flynn, Paul



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cran, James


Atkins, Robert
Critchley, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Devlin, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Benyon, W.
Dover, Den


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dunn, Bob


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evennett, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fallon, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Freeman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Chris
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Cash, William
Gow, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Gregory, Conal
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Ground, Patrick
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Hayward, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hill, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hind, Kenneth
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunter, Andrew
Shelton, Sir William


Irvine, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Irving, Sir Charles
Shersby, Michael


Jack, Michael
Sims, Roger


Janman, Tim
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jessel, Toby
Speed, Keith


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Speller, Tony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Kilfedder, James
Stern, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stevens, Lewis


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sumberg, David


Knowles, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lilley, Peter
Trippier, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Trotter, Neville


Lord, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


McCrindle, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Walden, George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Watts, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Wheeler, Sir John


Maples, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Marland, Paul
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wood, Timothy


Mates, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Maude, Hon Francis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Nelson, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 16

DUTY OF ENFORCING AUTHORITY TO CONSULT HARBOUR AUTHORITIES

'.—(1) Where the carrying on of a prescribed process will involve the release of any substance into a harbour, the enforcing authority shall consult the harbour authority before granting or varying an authorisation.

(2) In this section—
harbour" and "harbour authority" have the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964; and
vary", in relation to an authorisation, means imposing further conditions or varying or rescinding conditions.'.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 37.
Amendment No. 292, in clause 6, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
'(5A) where the authorisation is to cover a discharge to water it should contain a specific section notifying the operator of the requirements of the National Rivers Authority in relation to that discharge in relation to both the standards to be met and the monitoring required.'.
Government amendments Nos. 81 to 87, 62 and 88.

Mr. Knapman: New clause 16 would require enforcing authorities to consult harbour authorities before authorising the release of substances into the harbour. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that harbour authorities—that is, those within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964—have powers and duties in regard to the management, maintenance and improvement of their harbours. Nearly all such authorities have a duty to dredge their harbours, primarily for the safety and convenience of navigation. As so graphically described by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this spoil has to be disposed of. This can be done on land, and I understand that until now a licence has been required under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I understand that henceforth a licence will be required under part II of the Bill.
The alternative is to dump at sea, and that, too. would require a licence. Dumping at sea is generally rather more economical than dumping on land, but the granting of a licence for the purpose may depend on the chemical composition of the dredgings. Chemical interaction takes place in the water column when fresh and salt water mix. This frequently results in substances released in harbours accumulating in sediments to levels far higher than those which were initially released.
It is logical, therefore, that any harbour authority should be concerned about the releases of substances into the water within the harbour, and the new clause recognises that concern. It would require the enforcing authority, before granting authorisation under the new system of control, to consult the harbour authority. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the duty would not impose any serious administrative burden on the enforcing authority. I shall welcome his consideration of the clause. In Committee, he was helpful in accepting amendments when he could, and he put us down gently when he could not.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am flattered that my humble amendment, No. 292, has been grouped with new clause 16. I have hitherto agreed entirely with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has said in this place.
I search for a constituency interest. Whatever may happen to the ozone layer or whatever may be the greenhouse effect, I doubt that Basingstoke will have to deal with the problems. I am bewildered that my amendment has been grouped with the new clause, but that having happened I have the opportunity to make what I believe is a valid point. It is one which I made in Committee, and it concerns integrated pollution control—the principle, the system, its application and the abiding concern of industry that this will not, in effect, be the one-stop shop that the Government have hitherto assured us will be the position.
I do not wish to be repetitive. Many of those who are now here were members of the Committee and heard me advance the argument that I am presenting to the House. There is concern that any particular industrial process will still be subject to the overriding and overruling command of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and that the National Rivers Authority, the privatised water utilities, the waste regulatory authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will still be involved in the regulatory process. Industry is concerned that bureaucracy is being created. Although the principle is sound, the fear is that the wealth and job-creating processes will suffer accordingly. Therefore, the amendment seeks simplification and a lightening of the burden.
That is the basis of the argument behind amendment No. 292.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for the way in which they spoke to new clause 16 and amendment No. 292. I shall reply briefly. I must apologise to my hon. Friends at the outset because I shall not be accepting either the new clause or the amendment. I am genuinely sorry because I know how successful they were in Committee in introducing amendments that proved to be acceptable to the Government. I was happy to accept a number of them in their entirety, without having to say that I would return to them on Report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud explained why it is necessary that harbour authorities should be consulted when the following of a prescribed process will involve the direct release of a substance into a harbour. I am pleased to say that schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe consultees in regulations. In that sense, the new clause is otiose. If it is right that harbour authorities should be consulted, that will be prescribed in the regulations. The regulations are the right place to define statutory consultees. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause because I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of his argument.
I think that there is a connection between the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the new clause introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. Both concern water, the NRA and harbours, possibly, tenuous though that connection might be. Clause 25 meets the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. It establishes that HMIP will be the lead body with which industry must interface. HMIP will consult the NRA, which will then have the power to veto an application if it considers that releases from the process will contribute to a failure to achieve any water quality objective or to require the inclusion of conditions in the authorisation that HMIP grants.

Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I agree that Basingstoke is not likely to have a harbour. That is just about as certain as saying that neither he nor I will make wet Tories. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments.

As the House has placed certain duties upon harbour authorities, I hope that the authorities will be consulted under regulations in due course. In view of my hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

LEVELS OF RADIOACTIVITY

'( )—(1) The inspector appointed under section 11A(1) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 as amended shall have as one of his functions the undertaking on an annual basis of a review of the levels of radioactivity experienced by persons employed in any establishment maintained for the purpose of reprocessing radioactive material, or for the generation of electricity using any radioactive process, and, where he considers it appropriate, any other establishment in which research or other processes involving radioactive materials are undertaken, other than an establishment to which section 14(2) of that Act as amended applies.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the inspector shall examine relevant levels of radioactivity at each such establishment on an annual basis.'.—[Ms. Walley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Walley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 1 to 23.

Ms. Walley: I shall be brief, in the interests of making progress. The Bill has presented us with many opportunities and it is disappointing that the Government have decided not to make some real improvements to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. The way in which that measure has been dealt with is evidence of the Government's piecemeal approach.
There should be tighter controls for those who are exposed to certain levels of radioactivity, and the new clause is a first step towards introducing those necessary controls. It calls for an inspector to review the levels of radioactivity that are experienced by persons employed in areas where there are radioactive materials, subject to the exceptions which are set out.
The new clause is a starting point. It does not commit the Government to controls that we would like to see, but it paves the way for lower exposure levels. It is an issue which came to the fore during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. We look to the International Commission on Radiological Protection to recommend lower exposure limits, but there is much that can be done nationally. There is much that industry can do, especially as there is uncertainty about the risks of radiation.
It is well known that there are genuine fears that the risks of radiation are four to five times higher than those that were previously recognised, and that the United States National Academy of Sciences has suggested that the risks are six to eight times higher than those that were estimated in 1977. All this needs to be reflected in standards that are adopted nationally. We believe that the new clause could go some way towards bringing together environmental concerns about this most important issue.
It is worth referring to the implications of the Gardner report, which was published during the Committee stage. It identified two groups of workers who faced the highest risk of having a child who developed leukaemia. It is important that the report's recommendations are taken on


board, certainly by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but also by other Departments, including those responsible for health and safety in industry. It is important to note that, for the first time, the trade unions involved in the industry have joined with the various environmental groups to force the pace for changes in the limits for exposure levels. The new clause would provide the opportunity to do that.
8 pm
I shall deal briefly with the Government amendments. I refer the Under-Secretary to our debates in Committee and the points raised as a result of the experience of officers in the metropolitan borough of Dudley in respect of the Pear Tree site. There appears to be a loophole in existing legislation because local authorities are not, as of right, consulted when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution authorises the disposal of radioactive substances. Dudley council had to seek a judicial review to get its views represented. I seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the promises and undertakings given in Committee have been fulfilled and that it is now possible for me to tell the leader of the Dudley council, with absolute certainty, that section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 has been changed so that local authorities will have an automatic right to a hearing before the Secretary of State takes the specified action under section 11(1). It is an important issue which has arisen out of the practical experiences of local authorities. If the Under-Secretary cannot give the assurance that I seek, I hope that it will be given in another place.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I accept the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, but I assure her that there is no category of substances or waste that receives so much attention and such extensive monitoring as radioactive substances.
I cannot accept new clause 21, for the good reason that its proposals duplicate existing legislation. The functions proposed by the new clause would be carried out by inspectors appointed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. However, those functions are already carried out and effectively enforced under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The regulations deal, among other things, with dosages to classified workers and with dosages generally in the workplace. They explicitly cover the substance of the new clause. They are enforced by the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive, which reports to the Health and Safety Commission, which in turn reports to the Secretary of State for Employment. The new clause would duplicate existing legislation and I urge the House to reject it.
The Government amendments to part V are all technical and rectify minor omissions revealed in Committee or improve consistency between part V and other parts of the Bill.
I shall touch on one matter that involves local authorities as that was the substance of the hon. Lady's remarks. Although clause 85 amends the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to provide that copies of enforcement and prohibition notices shall be sent to the local authorities that received a copy of the section 1 registration and the section 6 authorisation, it does not provide that copies shall go to authorities that receivers section 3 registrations in respect of mobile plant. Similarly, no provision is made for other public authorities that

receive copies of notices to be informed of their withdrawal. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 rectify those omissions. There are other similar amendments, which I do not think will cause any controversy. I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has had to leave the House, so I shall briefly respond to the Minister's remarks. He said that the new clause duplicates existing legislation. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned today, and which she also put before the Committee some weeks ago, highlights the problem—certainly with the working of existing provisions even if they are adequate in themselves.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the need for local authorities to be consulted and informed about what is happening in their areas. They should have the right to express an opinion and to have it taken into account before any decision is made. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and keep a careful watch on what is happening, because it is causing concern to some local authorities. It is important that they have the right to be involved in such decisions.
As my hon. Friend is not here, we cannot withdraw the motion. However, we will not press it to a Division.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 23

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE

'( )—(1) The Secretary of State may by Order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3), below which are vested in him under this Act, to any body established in accordance with subsection (2) below.

(2) The Secretary of State may by Order within two years of the passing of this Act establish an Environmental Protection Executive with a regional structure corresponding in area to any regional authorities established in England, Scotland and Wales.

(3) The functions of any body established under this section may by Order made by the Secretary of State include—

(a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally;
(b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance of Part I of this Act:
(c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below;
(d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste;
(e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below;
(f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planning matters;
(g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters;
(h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities;
(i) the co-ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land;
(j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 116 or 117 in relation to toxic waste;


(k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 119 below;
(l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 122 below; and
(m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.

(4) The Executive shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.

(5) Any order issued under subsection (2) above shall include provision for the incorporation as freestanding specialist persons or bodies within any body established under this section of the chief inspector and his staff, the National Rivers Authority and such other bodies or Departments of State, or parts thereof, as the Secretary of State may determine, and any such body shall have such powers of overall direction and the issuing of guidance, and such duties to promote co-operation and joint working, as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.—[Mr. Murphy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Murphy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 24—Functions of local authorities—
'( )—(1) For the purposes of protecting and enhancing the environment of their areas, the functions of local authorities as specified in this Act shall include—

(a) the promotion, protection and enhancement of the natural and physical environment in their areas, in liaison with national and regional bodies with environmental regulatory functions;
(b) the monitoring and auditing of the quality of the local environment in accordance with standards established under this Act; or by the National Executive or the Secretary of State;
(c) the provision of public information on environmental matters relevant to the local area;
(d) the co-ordination of other local authority functions for the purpose of enhancing the local environment;
(e) the local enforcement of requirements in relation to integrated pollution control, waste management, statutory nuisance and such other standards as may be determined under this Act;
(f) the maintenence of such public registers or authorisations, applications and infringements of standards as may be required under this Act; and
(g) the undertaking of environmental impact assessments into local processes capable of causing pollution or likely to arise from developmant applications.

(2) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of any financial year in which the functions specified under this section, or otherwise under this Act, are exercisable by local authorities satisfy himself that the resources available to those authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of those functions.
(3) The functions of local authorities under this section may be exercised through one or more committees of elected members of the authority.'.

New clause 25—Protection from hazardous and other wastes—
'( )—(1) This section shall have effect for the purpose of maintaining and improving the protection of persons and of the environment from hazardous or other waste or injurious substances or articles.
(2) The Secretary of State shall exercise any powers vested in him under the relevant provisions of Part VIII or under this

section for the purposes of securing the objectives specified in subsection (1) above, and in particular he shall, whether by regulations or otherwise—

(a) prohibit or restrict the exportation from the United Kingdom of any substance or article specified under section 116(1) below;
(b) prohibit or restrict the exportation from the United Kingdom of substances or articles where he is satisfied that such substances or articles are to be used in connection with any process which presents a risk of causing pollution of the environment and he is not satisfied that the competence of the persons concerned or as the case may be the regulation of such processes in the country concerned is likely to eliminate so far as reasonably practicable such risk;
(c) prohibit or restrict the importation of waste for direct landfill;
(d) require any licensing authority to refuse to grant any licence application which conflicts with any relevant Ministerial Declaration of a North Sea Conference extant at the time of the application, or which seeks authorisation for activities giving rise to a risk of pollution of the marine environment or the living resources which it supports;
(e) review within one year the maximum levels of penalties specified under sections 116(10) and 117(5)(e) below;
(f) introduce requirements for labelling applicable to identified producers of waste; and
(g) require to be undertaken, and issue guide-lines in respect of, a national audit of toxic waste.'.

Mr. Murphy: New clause 23 refers to the setting up of an environmental protection executive with a regional structure. We dealt with that issue on several occasions in Committee. Such a body would deal with preventive measures against pollution, with integrated pollution control in general, with research, and with co-ordinating the various functions affecting pollution. It would be made up of experts, scientists and representatives of local authorities. It would release the Secretary of State from many burdens. It would effectively mean a decentralisation of control over pollution and other matters in the United Kingdom.
New clause 24 would reflect that proposal at local level. Local authorities would be used as local environmental protection agencies. When local authorities were established 150 years ago, they dealt with sanitation and housing, so they actually set the ball rolling on environmental protection. Over the years they have developed expertise in the collection and disposal of waste; in the cleaning of streets and roads; in the monitoring of pollution of the air and sea; in noise abatement; in transport, planning and housing; and in leisure and tourism. They have a unique experience and expertise in environmental matters. They would be ideally suited to be local environmental protection agencies. Above all, they would be accountable to the electorate.
New clause 25 would strengthen the Secretary of State's position with regard to hazardous and toxic wastes, especially imports and exports. We spent many an hour in Committee dealing with the problems of imported toxic waste. It is a matter of considerable public concern, which was evidenced by the Karin B and the exports of Canadian PCBs to ReChem in my constituency in south Wales. There is no doubt that on both those occasions there was considerable public dismay at the fact that advanced countries, not Third-world countries, were dumping some of the most poisonous wastes known to man in these islands. There need to be the strongest possible controls on such importations.
We are also worried about imports to landfill sites. New clause 25 gives the Secretary of State greater power to ban the importation of toxic waste to such sites. The Select Committee on the Environment proposed a complete ban on such imports. For example, we heard about the 75,000 tonnes of PCB—contaminated waste on its way to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry site from West Germany via East Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked me to mention that case, and I gladly do so. The tremendous upheavals and changes in eastern Europe, which had a much laxer regime for toxic waste, mean that waste that would have been dumped in landfill sites in eastern Europe can no longer be dumped there and could end up in Britain unless we have the strongest possible legislation to ensure that we deal only with the waste that we ourselves generate.
That is a major issue. I know that the Minister has considerable sympathy with much of what I have said and I look forward to his reply.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The present structure for the management of aqueous and solid waste and aerial discharges from factories is fragmented. We welcomed the establishment of the National Rivers Authority last year, but air pollution and toxic waste disposal from industry are matters for local authorities and HMIP, and the standards that prevail are variable. It is a matter of regret for many hon. Members that the Government have not adopted in the Bill the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment and based the WRAs on regional authorities rather than the county and district councils in Wales.
But more important is the role of HMIP in the control of air pollution. We are all aware of the shortcomings of HMIP. It is an inadequate and understaffed body where morale is poor. It is overloaded with responsibilities and the Bill gives it massive additional responsibilities.
New clause 23 outlines the structure and responsibilities of an environmental protection executive. It is a concise formulation, giving wide-ranging responsibilities. It would be an umbrella organisation for the NRA, local authorities and so on. Many European countries have such an agency. The United States established its Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. We are 20 years behind some countries.
New clause 24 complements new clause 23 and defines the responsibilities of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke eloquently of the role of local authorities over the centuries in providing water and sanitation services and caring for the local environment generally. New clause 24 underlines their role as local environmental protection agencies.
8.15 pm
New clause 25 deals with the management of hazardous waste, a matter which has so far received insufficient attention. We try to manage our rivers reasonably. With tens of thousands of incidents of water pollution every year, I am not happy with our standards, but at least we have an infrastructure for the management of our rivers and, over the decades, our standards have been gradually improving.
But our philosophy on the disposal of solid waste has always been "Out of sight, out of mind". Once it has been dumped somewhere, we think very little about it. But we are now having cases of contaminated land and of

leachates contaminating water courses and possibly even water supplies. We should look much more carefully at the management of hazardous waste. Some of the waste that is dumped is as toxic as nuclear waste, yet we would never consider dumping nuclear waste as landfill. We also need to look carefully at co-disposal in Britain—the practice of disposing of toxic waste alongside domestic refuse. Other countries do not do that. It is banned in the United States and the European Commission may soon issue a directive banning it here, too.
New clause 25 also seeks to prohibit the importation of waste for direct landfill. It is appalling that waste from countries where its use as landfill is illegal should come here to be disposed of on the cheap. This is a massive growth industry in Britain. Our imports of toxic waste have increased tenfold in the past decade simply because it is cheap to get rid of it here, as our standards are laxer than elsewhere.
Waste can be treated by various solidification processes. Unfortunately, some are unreliable and need to be carefully supervised and monitored. Treated waste may be more acceptable, but all countries should eventually treat their own waste and develop facilities for its disposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen referred to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry where a lot of waste is presently imported for landfill. It has contracts with Swiss companies to import what in Switzerland is classified as special waste but which here is not classified as hazardous waste. There is a difference in definition. Recently, it was about to sign contracts for the importation of a massive cargo from West Germany which had previously been destined for East Germany. There is a tremendous danger in the next few years of our taking West German exports of toxic waste as it can no longer dump waste cheaply in East Germany and will look for sites elsewhere. Britain could be a prime site as it is so cheap to dispose of waste here.
In the last sentence of new clause 25 we call for a national audit of toxic and all other waste because if we consider the issue nationally, we shall develop disposal facilities commensurate with the national problem. I am thinking in particular about incinerators. On Monday, the Minister talked about the incineration of sewage sludge and said that finding sites for such incinerators will become a major problem in the next 10 years.
If we had not had the experience of ReChem in Pontypool things might have been better. That incinerator was built to service industry in south Wales, the south-west and the midlands. It has become an international facility and its main business is the importation and incineration of polychlorinated biphenyls. The plant has gained a bad reputation among everyone who thinks anything of the environment.
The problem with siting incinerators in the north-east and on the east coast is that the public will fear that they will be used for the incineration of toxic waste.
New clause 25 does not go quite far enough. The Labour party thinks that we should ban the importation of all toxic waste unless it can be demonstrated to be in the wider international interest to import it.
I commend the three new clauses to the House. They would set up an environmental protection executive, give a more explicit role to local authorities and improve the management of hazardous waste.

Mr. Trippier: I have some sympathy with a great deal of what the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) have said. As hon. Members will recall, we discussed the environmental protection executive, as it is called in new clause 23, at some length on 30 January. I thought that we had a helpful and interesting discussion then. If I recommend to the House that we reject new clauses 23 and 24, it is not because I do not accept the spirit behind them or what has been said in debate; it is simply because such a course would be premature.
The hon. Member for Torfaen knows that there has been another opportunity to listen to similar suggestions in another place, when my noble Friend the Earl of Cranbrook spoke in an earlier debate. His appointment as chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council has met with wide acclaim and is highly regarded. I found that debate interesting.
On several occasions in Committee, I gave the commitment that we would consider institutional change in the White Paper that we said should be published in the autumn, and we shall do that.
The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Carmarthen made some comments about the responsibility of local authorities. I do not demur. They will recall that we have given additional responsibilities to local authorities during the passage of the Bill. The local authority associations seem to have welcomed that, and it has met with universal support in the House, as it did in Committee. I cannot remember a single Division on the issue.
I have difficulty with the idea of regional responsibility. The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that he wants there to be regional responsibility for waste regulation. He has heard me denounce that idea in the past. I will not repeat what I said in Committee.
This afternoon, I met a delegation from the metropolitan borough of Wakefield to talk about a tip in that area which is well known in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen will know, Wakefield is a Labour-controlled borough. The all-party delegation and the Labour chairman of the regulatory body in that area made it abundantly clear to me that the last thing that they would want is a regional regulatory body. Perhaps they are at odds with the parliamentary Labour party or the Labour Members on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. They clearly are at odds. If I had that experience with one metropolitan borough, I have no doubt that, if I had the opportunity to meet others, I would experience it again.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister agree that, when we consider protection of the environment, the environment is the overriding factor, not falling in line with exactly what local government want to do? We genuinely believe that regional waste regulatory authorities are the direction in which we should be going. We are strong supporters of local government, but this may be an instance when we would take a slightly different approach because it is highly desirable for the environment.

Mr. Trippier: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter. I have heard them in the past. I am simply pointing out to him that those were not the views expressed by the leader of Wakefield council—Mr. John Pearman—this afternoon. Clearly, we do not have unanimity on the issue.
I must tell the hon. Member for Carmarthen that the Labour councillors also told me at that meeting—without my soliciting the comment—that they thought that the argument produced in The Observer, with help from Friends of the Earth, in which many contaminated land tips were denounced, was the most irresponsible piece of journalism that they have ever come across. I pray that in aid because, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen may remember, I used similar words on several occasions in Committee.
I feel under an obligation to deal with new clause 25, because I recognise that there is some thrust behind it. It is an old friend and we discussed it in Committee. It is a large handbag containing a number of objects that Opposition Members believe that the Secretary of State might find useful.
The first two subsections require restriction or prohibition of exports which might endanger the environment overseas. The first applies to the export of substances, the import, use or supply of which the Secretary of State has prohibited or restricted under clause 116. That power is not necessary or appropriate because the United Kingdom already operates regimes under international agreements to implement exports of hazardous substances and wastes.
The second subsection would require the exercise of what, to my mind, is impossible judgment. The Secretary of State would be obliged to prohibit the export of substances and articles if he thinks that the recipients are not competent to use them safely. We discussed that at some length in Committee. The Government believe that it would be a more constructive and realistic approach—and perhaps less patronising—to help less-developed countries through the active promotion of technology transfer, including the transfer of technical, scientific and professional know-how. There is not just a difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on that issue; there is a yawning chasm.
I appreciate that a debate on the subject would not be complete without someone trying to criticise ReChem. I suppose that we could all have written the script. I was not particularly surprised that the hon. Members who represent the constituency in which ReChem is situated and the neighbouring constituency used this opportunity to have another stab at it. We do not do that.
If the sophisticated facilities provided by ReChem are properly licensed and monitored—I have said on several occasions in Committee how many times inspectors from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution have visited these sites—we must be satisfied. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, I wonder whether they would try to close the ReChem plant. I doubt it. I wonder whether they would impose tougher standards or emission targets. This part of the Bill raises standards, as it should. IPC comes under part I. The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Carmarthen have welcomed that.
I have delayed the House too long on this matter. Paragraphs (f) and (g) of new clause 25 would require unacceptable, burdensome, bureaucratic arrangements to be created for purposes which could not justify them. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press any of the new clauses to a vote.

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the Minister's comments on new clauses 23 and 24. He said that institutional change will be on the agenda both during the Bill's passage through the other place and when we consider the White Paper on the environment. In that event, I have no hesitation in not pressing the new clause to a Division.
I smile at the devolution argument which has been turned on its head by the Minister. Only two hours or so ago, the Government were the champions of devolution with regard to the NCC and its break-up, but they now appear to wonder whether regional responsibility for waste disposal is a good thing.
I am interested in the Minister's comments about the importation of toxic waste. It is the policy of the Opposition and of many others, including some members of the Conservative party, that there should be a full-scale, independent public inquiry into what occurs at ReChem. There has been no indication that a Labour Government would close that plant. As I understand it, a large proportion of the substances in which it deals are, in effect, non-hazardous compared with PCBs. The controversy surrounds PCBs, which are extremely poisonous, and the importation of toxic wastes. I think that we all agree that each advanced country should look after its own toxic wastes. It is not right that advanced countries should send their poisons here to Britain, to Wales and to my constituency to be dealt with.

Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. His last point is perfectly valid. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the lead in the European Council of Ministers by saying that we should not only persuade the other 11 members of the European Community but take the matter to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. On that matter, we are as one. Developed, industralised countries should be responsible for dealing with their own hazardous waste and should be self-sufficient in that sense. There is no difference between the Government and the Labour party on that. The difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is with the developing or Third-world countries which do not have the necessary facilities. Our world concern is that, if we are not careful and that waste cannot be dealt with properly, it may be dumped in the sea or in some dark corner of Africa, where it will be a great danger to life and limb.

Mr. Murphy: We are at one on that point. Much of what has been said in this short debate is a matter of agreement. I shall not press the new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

CODES ON CONTROL OF PESTS

'—(1) The Ministers shall from time to time after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of interests concerned—

(a) prepare and issue codes containing such recommendations, advice and information they consider proper for the purpose of providing practical guidance on the release of substances for the purpose of securing safe, efficient and humane methods of controlling pests on land used for agriculture or sporting purposes; and

(b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code.

(2) A code prepared in pursuance of subsection (1) and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after being prepared; and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not be issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), the Ministers shall cause every code prepared or revised in pursuance of subsection (1) to be printed, and shall cause copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such prices as the Ministers may determine.

(4) In this section "the Ministers" in the application of this section to England, means the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, in the application of this section to Scotland or Wales, means the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
The intention behind the new clause is to introduce a code of conduct on the use of pesticides on various forms of estates, both sporting estates and farms. We need a code of conduct in the Bill because, without doubt, there has been widespread abuse of pesticides, rodenticides and insecticides by a minority of people who kill protected species of birds of prey.
The group involved fall into two categories. The first comprises farmers who deliberately set out to kill pest species, such as corvids, various types of carrion crows and foxes, by illegal means. They do so by putting down eggs that have been injected with poison or by putting poison on various forms of carrion that they know crows and foxes will eat. The trouble is that the poison is eaten not just by crows and foxes but by protected birds. These incidents have occurred in Wales and led to the death of red kites.
The second category involves a much more sinister misuse, which I should like the code of conduct to cover in particular. It takes place particularly in Scotland. Eighty per cent. of this abuse occurs on sporting estates, and the poisons are used for the control of pests as well, but in this case the other target is deliberate. The poison is used in a calculating way and it is aimed at protected birds of prey, such as merlin, sparrowhawks, hen harriers, golden eagles and buzzards, with those involved knowing full well that the consequences of their action will be the death of these protected species.
As a sign of the dramatic impact of this abuse, I should like to point out that some species, such as the buzzard, do not exist in England and Scotland in habitats where in normal circumstances one would expect to find them. The red kite is restricted to about 50 pairs, mainly in central Wales. At one time, they occurred throughout this country. Hon. Members who have been on holiday in central France will have found that the red kite is widespread throughout France, as is the black kite. There is no reason why red kites should not be as widespread in this country if they did not suffer from persecution.
White-tailed eagles were exterminated in this country but have recently been reintroduced in a programme carried out in conjunction with the NCC and RSPB. Some of those birds have been found poisoned. The same is true of the hen harrier, which does not exist in large areas of suitable moorland habitat throughout England and


Scotland. Britain contains significant numbers of the EEC's population of species such as the hen harrier, but the numbers are decreasing.
The main chemicals used are alpha chloros and strychnine. The abuse of these chemicals is illegal under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and section 12 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Despite that, over the past nine years the incidence of illegal killings of birds of prey has been as follows: 30 golden eagles, 186 buzzards, 22 red kites, 5 hen harriers and 2 white-tailed eagles. In 1989 alone, 11 red kites out of a population of 50 pairs were found poisoned in Wales. Without doubt, the deaths were caused by hill farmers who were trying to control foxes and crows, but they did not use poison in a way that could be controlled. Its use was, of course, illegal.
In 1989, the NCC and RSPB released 11 red kites in Scotland and England as part of an experiment to find out whether the populations could be re-established. Within six months of release, two of the birds were found dead, both poisoned. The kites were fitted with radio transmitters so that their bodies could be traced. Autopsies showed beyond doubt that they had been deliberately poisoned.
In the game-rearing areas, particularly in Scotland, 80 per cent. of all poisoning incidents were on land used for sporting purposes. In the past three years alone, nearly 80 birds have been found poisoned on Scottish estates, including eight golden eagles, 28 buzzards, three peregrine falcons and two of the reintroduced red kites. Few successful prosecutions are made. It is often impossible to identify the offender. According to the latest figures, only 1·4 per cent. of all reported incidents go to court.
There are legitimate ways of controlling pests and predators—for example, by the use of crow traps and by controlling the breeding populations. I hope that the Government will accept the code and that it will be made widely available to landowners, and to associations and unions representing landowners, to encourage them to cease the destructive and illegal practice and to adopt acceptable and legal methods.

Mr. Hunter: I intervene to clear the point. I am chairman of the falconry committee of the British Field Sports Society. I seek clarification of the thesis that the hon. Gentleman has just propounded. I ask him to comment on the proposition that it is indeed the practice of field sports with regard to falconry to preserve and increase the number of those species of wild birds which are essential to the environment.

Mr. Morley: I am sure that those involved in falconry share my concern about protecting the species. I do not think there is any suggestion that people concerned with falconry have been involved in the abuse. Those involved are motivated by greed. People who manage grouse moors in particular want to maximise their revenue from bringing in people to shoot on the moors; so they want to increase the number of grouse. Pressure is put on gamekeepers to exterminate birds of prey which may reduce the number of grouse. That is completely unacceptable.
I can give a specific example on which I would be grateful for the Minister's comments. I understand that on the Buccleuch estate, which is administered by the Earl of

Dalkeith although it is owned by the Duke of Buccleuch, a gamekeeper was sacked. He has given information about what was regarded as a standard practice on that estate of supplying keepers with pesticides and rodenticides, particularly alpha chloros, for use on bait, either laid down to kill birds of prey or used on carrion which was found as the keepers walked round the estate. The gamekeeper, Mr. Rodney Smith, claims that, in one year, over 300 birds of prey, mainly sparrowhawks and owls, were killed on the estate. He claims that a blind eye was turned to the abuse and that pressure is put on gamekeepers to break the law. Although that is strongly denied by the Earl of Dalkeith, I believe that some landowners condone the practice in private, although they condemn it in public. That undermines the credibility of landowners who manage their land responsibly and lawfully and who do their best to encourage nature conservation. However, many landowners, particularly in Scotland, have a deliberate policy of destroying illegally birds of prey.
The Earl of Dalkeith was put on the ruling council of the Nature Conservancy Council by the former Secretary of State for the Environment. That was a disgrace when the illegal slaughter of birds of prey has been taking place on an estate for which he has been responsible. He should resign, and the Minister should support me in that call.

Mr. Hunter: I do not quarrel substantially with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I wish him to put firmly on record what I believe he knows to be the case, that the British Field Sports Society has issued clear guidelines to all involved in shooting that they should not follow the practice which he condemns, and which I too condemn. I wish him to acknowledge that respectable authorities agree with him and accept the thesis which he propounds.

Mr. Morley: In all fairness, I acknowledge that the British Field Sports Society has made that statement publicly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the actions of people who turn a blind eye to deliberate poisoning—or, even worse, encourage it—undermine the credibility of the whole field sports movement and the concept of sporting estates. As long as people do that, the whole sport will be discredited.

Mr. Hunter: I agree with the hon. Member.

8.45

Mr. Morley: I am grateful for that support.
I support a code of conduct. I appeal to reputable landowners and to those who care about the environment and about conservation to stamp out illegal practices once and for all. There have been plenty of pious comments, but the slaughter still goes on. There are still vast parts of Scotland which do not contain certain species of birds of prey. If the code of conduct is not adequate, I will press for a change in the law to make landowners, as well as the people who put down the bait, responsible for poisoning incidents which take place on their land. Those who employ others to break the law must take their share of the blame. The code of conduct is a modest step in trying to curb odious and unacceptable practices. I hope that the Government will recognise the abuse and support me in my campaign.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) speaks on the subject with considerable knowledge and experience. I agree that there


is a problem. I am sure that he recognises that it is entirely legitimate for farmers and landowners to seek to control pests and vermin, but it must be done in a way that does not lead to the poisoning, whether accidental or deliberate, of species that are not vermin.
I cannot comment knowledgeably or at first hand on the allegations that the hon. Gentleman repeated about the Buccleuch estate or Lord Dalkeith. I understand that the article to which he referred was unbalanced, and exaggerated the position in suggesting that hundreds of rare and protected birds were being shot or poisoned on the estate. The facts do not support that allegation. In any case Lord Dalkeith has, I understand, issued written instructions to his employees that that should not happen and that birds of prey on his land are to be respected.
It is more important to widen the debate to deal with general matters of policy. I remind the House that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is already an offence to set poison, or poisoned or stupefying substances, with the intention of causing bodily injury to any wild bird. Similarly, under section 11 of the Act, it is an offence to set poison in a way that is calculated to cause injury to any wild animal specified in schedule 6, which includes badgers, bats, wild cats, hedgehogs, pine martens, otters, polecats, shrews and red squirrels. So there is already widespread protection enforced by law under threat of penalty.

Mr. Hunter: I should like my hon. Friend to acknowledge the responsible attitude of the British Field Sports Society, that conservation and the promotion of bird game are identical. I should like him to note that, without that attitude being adopted by landowners and farmers, conservation would be infinitely the poorer.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I acknowledge that. Those who engage in field sports have the clearest possible self-interest in maintaining a wide diversity of species, including quarry species. It is interesting that people who are not normally well disposed towards field sports now acknowledge that stag hunting on Exmoor has probably led to the survival of red deer there, almost uniquely in England. Mr. Richard Course, who has been a Labour candidate and who was prominent in the League Against Cruel Sports, recently announced his conversion, acknowledging publicly that he has come round to the view that stag hunting on Exmoor has done much to preserve and protect red deer in that part of the country. That was a remarkable and brave statement—almost an admission—from someone who has spent many years pursuing the opposite point of view, and demonstrates that when the facts are investigated, they are often at variance with prejudice and misunderstanding.

Mr. Morley: I should not let that statement pass unchallenged. Red deer may well have been introduced to and preserved on Exmoor for the purpose of stag hunting, but that population can now be maintained and controlled without the need for stag hunting, which many people, including myself, find barbaric and odious.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not attempting to give my views, but simply want to pass on to the House the interesting observation of someone who has studied the matter and, up to now, held a contrary view. Mr. Course was firmly opposed to field sports in all forms, but it is now his opinion that, whereas the red deer have been hunted

and shot almost to extinction in most other parts of England, they are thriving on Exmoor. He attributes that at least in part to the fact that those who hunt the red stag have a clear self-interest in ensuring the success arid survival of the species. I put that to the House without further comment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I intervene only briefly because the League Against Cruel Sports is based in my constituency, and to observe that Mr. Course is no longer a member or employee of the league. The view that the Minister attributed to Mr. Course is not the view of the league, which continues to object to that practice and sport on the grounds that have just been set out by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). Mr. Course is in the small minority of those who have held an anti-bloodsports view and who have changed that view. There are explanations for that, but it would not be proper to go into them in the House.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not in the least surprised to learn that Mr. Course is no longer a member of the League Against Cruel Sports, but his opinions and observations are no less valid for that.
The phrasing of new clause 27 closely follows part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, either by derivation or accident. That in itself demonstrates that the new clause is unnecessary because its provisions are already covered in separate legislation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe knows this, but I remind other hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food The origins of that committee date back to 1954, although has changed its name several times. The committee is now supported by four expert technical panels, one of which is the environmental panel. From time to time that panel publishes studies into the suspected poisoning of animals by pesticides.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have listened to the Minister with great interest because he is repeating what was more or less said to the House when we considered the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, the problem is that in the nine years since then, the levels of poisoning appear to have increased rather than decreased. It therefore appears that the present legislation is not working. Surely it is time that we changed the legislation to make it work and to stop those levels of poisoning.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new clause calls for codes of practice, but they are already provided for in the present legislation. Moreover, the environmental panel of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has published useful facts and statistics on that matter. The panel supports at least some of the hon. Gentleman's observations. It is true that pesticides are misused—sometimes deliberately. That is highly regrettable and penalties are in place to attempt to deal with that. The Government are not complacent. We do not deny that such incidents occur.
Nevertheless, I invite the House to reject the new clause simply on the ground that it duplicates powers that are already available under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which, as I said, provides for codes of practice on the release of substances for controlling pests. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the


Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to this debate and doubtless the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will take up the matter with him.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the Minister for his positive response and for his acknowledgement of the problem. I am aware of the code on pesticides that has just been published. It is a good code, but it is designed to deal with the spraying of pesticides more than with anything else. The new clause not only emphasises the relevant Acts, to which the Minister drew attention, but calls for positive codes of practice to assist those farmers who have a genuine pest control problem to deal with that problem in ways that are both acceptable and legal. That is a slightly different interpretation.

Sir George Young: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to catch my eye?

Sir George Young: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seeking to ask leave to withdraw his new clause?

Mr. Morley: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 59

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

' .—(1) No person shall smoke in a public place except in a designated smoking area.

(2) References in this section to a public place are to an enclosed public place.

(3) For the purposes of this Section, "public place" includes (but is not limited to) so much of any place within the categories described in Part I of Schedule (Smoking in public places) as is enclosed while the place is open to the public but does not include the categories of places (in this Section called "exempt places") described in Part II of that Schedule.

(4) An enclosed work place shall be a public place for the purposes of this Section unless it is an exempt place.

(5) It shall be the duty of the occupier of any public place to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of subsection (1) above.

(5A) Subject to the requirements of the regulations, the occupier of any public place may designate part (but not the whole) of that place as an area (in this Act called a designated smoking area) where smoking is permitted.

(6) It is an offence for a person

(a) to contravene subsection (1) above
(b) to fail to discharge the duty to which he is subject by virtue of subsection (5)
(c) to fail to comply with an order made by a court under subsection (10).

(7) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (6) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (6) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(9) Where a person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (6), then, if the contravention in respect of which he was convicted is continued after conviction he shall (subject to subsection (10)) be guilty of a further offence and liable in respect to a fine not exceeding £200 for each day on which the contravention is so continued.

(10) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (5) in respect of any matters which appear to the court to be matters which it is in his power to remedy, the court may, in addition to or instead of imposing any punishment, order him, within such time as may be fixed by the order, to take such steps as may be specified in the order for remedying the said matters.

(11) The time fixed by an order under subsection (10) above may be extended or further extended by order of the court on an application made before the end of that time as originally fixed or as extended under this subsection, as the case may be.

(12) Nothing in this Section shall

(a) require the occupier of any public place to designate smoking areas or otherwise prevent him from prohibiting smoking in all parts of a public place.
(b) require the carrying out of any structural or similar works to any premises for the purposes of defining smoking and non-smoking areas.

(13) This Section shall bind the Crown.

(14) For the purposes of this Section, an enclosed place is an area between a floor and a ceiling or roof which is enclosed on all sides by walls or windows (exclusive of door or passage ways) extending from the floor to the ceiling or roof.

(15) In this Section
occupier", in relation to any place, means the person having control or management of the place;
public" includes a section of the public;
smoking" includes having a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or any other smoking equipment and "smoke" shall be construed accordingly.

(16) This Section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different purposes.

(17) This Section shall extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.'.—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 327, new schedule—

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

PART I

PLACES WHICH ARE PUBLIC PLACES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION (SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES)

Business Premises

1. Premises used for any trade, business or profession to which the public have access.

Official premises

2. Premises occupied by any government department, local authority or other public body; to which the public have access.

Places of public entertainment or resort

3-(1) Theatres, cinemas and places used for any entertainment, exhibition or sporting event.

(2) Premises used for any meeting which the public are permitted to attend, whether on payment or otherwise.

(3) Hotels, inns and similar establishments used for the purposes of accommodation, public conveyances and transport premises.

4-(1) Railway passenger trains, public service vehicles, tramcars, trolley buses, taxi cabs and any other vehicle used for the transportation of the public.

(2) Any British registered vessel and any British controlled aircraft used for the public carriage of passengers.

(3) Enclosed areas of Railway stations, bus terminals and other transport premises.

Education premises

5. Class rooms, lecture halls and other areas of educational establishments used by persons attending such establishments.

Health care premises

6. Hospitals, clinics and other premises used for medical or dental purposes.

PART II

EXEMPT PLACES

1. Premises in respect of which a justices licence to sell intoxicating liquors by retail for consumption on the premises (other than a Part IV licence within the meaning of the Licensing Act 1964) is in the force.

2. Shops used wholly or mainly for the sale of tobacco and smokers requisites.

3. Those parts of hotels, inns and similar establishments, used for the purposes of accommodation, designated as smoking areas.'.

Sir George Young: I regret that my enthusiasm not to miss catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, led me to lean forward in my seat a moment or two earlier than I should have done.
New clause 59 seeks to ban smoking in public places.
The welcome debate on environmental issues which has gathered pace over recent months and much of which is focused on this Bill has had two consequences. First, it has raised public awareness on environmental matters, and, with it, public expectations; secondly, it has shown the breadth of the environmental debate and also the length of the environmental frontier patrolled so ably by my hon. Friend the Minister.
9 pm
The new clause is a product of these two factors: growing awareness and rising expectations, on the one hand, and the range of areas where progress can be made, on the other. It seeks to protect the public from one particular type of pollution, tobacco smoke, and to respond to the changing mood on smoking generally. It is, I believe, the first time that passive smoking has been debated as an environmental issue rather than as a health one, and it starts from the principle that non-smoking should be the norm in enclosed areas frequented by the public or employees, with special provision for smokers, rather than vice versa.
I hope that no one in the debate will claim that tobacco smoke is not a pollutant. It is the major pollutant in indoor air. Given the welcome progress that my hon. Friend had made in removing pollutants from outside air, this needs to be accompanied by progress inside, where, after all, most of us spend most of our time.

Mr. Hunter: I am not so concerned with pollution as with prejudice. My old grandfather was born and bred in Liverpool a hundred years ago. He did not like Roman Catholics—he was prejudiced—and his great vendetta in life as a Protestant from Liverpool was against Catholics. I am a non-apologising consumer of nicotine and tobacco. I love my pipe. I refuse to be prejudiced in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) continues to propound his thesis.

Sir George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend will see a distinction between being prejudiced against Catholics, and totally overlooking all the medical and scientific advice which shows that passive smoking is dangerous.
I quote briefly from the fourth report of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, which refers to the number of deaths caused by passive smoking:
It might however amount to several hundred out of the current annual total of about 40,000 lung cancer deaths in the United Kingdom, a small but not negligible proportion.
I am sure that my hon. Friend's grandfather never said that the Catholics in Liverpool killed people. We are here talking about something which is different in concept from the prejudices of what I am sure was a very distinguished old man.
I hope also that no one will claim that this is not a suitable matter for legislation. The Government have already legislated on atmospheric pollution and on public nuisances such as litter, which after all harms no one's health. Tobacco smoke is airborne litter, but bad for one's health as well.
It is not just the case, in the immortal words of Frank Sinatra, that smoke gets in your eyes. Smoke gets in your hair. Smoke gets in your clothes. My hon. Friend's pipe smoke gets in my mouth. People who suffer from asthma and other bronchial infections have their illnesses aggravated by smoke—either raw smoke from the tips of burning cigarettes or, to use the jargon, recycled smoke exhaled by my hon. Friend and others. Others find that smoke irritates their nose and throat and aggravates coughs. The numbers exposed to this nuisance are huge.
This debate is about the fairly basic entitlement to breathe air unpolluted by unpleasant fall-out of an activity increasingly realised to be both dangerous and anti-social. Public opinion surveys show that the steps proposed are supported not just by the non-smoking majority, but by the smoking minority. Asked what their reaction was to the proposition that, in general, people who do not smoke should have the right to work in air free of tobacco smoke, 86 per cent. of non-smokers assented, as did 81 per cent. of smokers. Eighty-nine per cent. of smokers agreed that all restaurants should provide no-smoking areas—something which I hope the Services Committee will consider in respect of the restaurants and cafeterias in the House, particularly in respect of Annie's Bar.
In today's papers I see that just such a measure as I propose was introduced yesterday in the Republic of Ireland; and similar measures already exist in the United States, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Norway and Spain.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I wonder if the hon. Member would care to propose a no-drinking area in Annie's Bar as well?

Sir George Young: Since, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you enjoy, I believe, both the activities that have been mentioned, you would rule me out of order if I attempted to extend new clause 59 beyond smoking.
I mention in passing the example that Ministers can set in their own Departments by making sure, for example, that the atmosphere at 2 Marsham street is pure. I remember, during my tenure at Marsham street, banning smoking in the lifts. All went well until my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) joined the Department, when the "no smoking" signs mysteriously disappeared. I hope that my hon.


Friend will tell me that, following my right hon. Friend's departure for the Department of Trade and Industry, those signs have been reinstated and that his Department has an effective policy for its own offices.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend remember that, when we all thought that he was an excellent Minister in the Department of the Environment, he went to Sweden and got carried away—not far enough, as it turned out—and said that he hoped that one day smoking would be only between consenting adults in private as though it were somewhat worse than adultery in public? People like my hon. Friend wish to impose on everyone their wonderful sanctified piety and say that nothing with which they do not agree should be allowed to take place in public. That is not Conservatism but left-wing socialism.

Sir George Young: What my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does with his pipe in private is his business.

Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young: May I finish my point? I note that two honourable pipe-smoking Friends are anxious to interrupt.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak does in public, imposing his foul-smelling pipe on those who happen to walk behind him, is different. I do not mind if he smokes his pipe at home. If he smokes it in a public place he imposes his prejudices on other people. My new clause seeks to insulate people from his anti-social activities.

Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young: I am anxious to make progress, because I suspect that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I hope that the Department of the Environment will at least issue guidelines to proprietors of public places on how to deal with the issue, perhaps working through environmental health officers. I accept that progress is being made on a voluntary basis. For example, the Department of Social Security office in my constituency has a smoke-free waiting area and the waiting room at Ealing Broadway station is now a smoke-free zone. Progress is being made in taxis and in some hotels and offices. But it is slow and sporadic.
One of the roles of the House of Commons is to reflect the shift in public opinion on social issues. There has been a shift in the role of the dog in our society, which we debated on Tuesday and to which the Government have responded. There has been a shift in public opinion on smoking, too. No one is about to ask that smoking be banned. But some of us will ask the Government to protect the most basic liberty to which our constituents are entitled—the right to breathe unpolluted air. We do that in this new clause which, in a nutshell, bans smoking in a public place except in a designated smoking area.

Mr. Crowther: I do not imagine for a moment that the House will be so foolish as to approve this ill-conceived new clause. Nevertheless, a few words need to be said to

tone down the extremism of the anti-smoking campaign which has now reached an almost unbelievable pitch of hysteria.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has studied the matter in detail. If so, he must know that there is as much evidence against his arguments about the dangers of so-called passive smoking as there is for it. I do not intend to go through all the evidence, but I have looked into it in some detail and I shall quote some of it.
The hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his argument the report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. I think that he was referring to the report published in March 1988. Certainly, that is the most widely publicised report on which so many of the anti-tobacco campaigners have depended. They seem to have depended on it without reading it in full or even fully understanding it. The report was not based on any independent research. It merely aggregated several carefully selected previously published studies. The report admitted:
None of the studies can be accepted as unequivocal.
That was said by the very people whom the hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his new clause.
The committee did not include other studies in its report. It admitted that other studies tended to show that there was no danger or risk whatever to non-smokers from so-called passive smoking. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not mention those matters in that same report when he quoted it in support of his new clause.
The report, which is now widely believed to be scientific truth, is nothing more than an expression of opinion.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is twaddle.

Mr. Crowther: Yes, but it is couched in scientific language.
A symposium was held in Austria in May 1988 on environmental tobacco smoke, ETS. It was organised by Mr. G. Lehnert and Mr. E. Wynder. I am sure that the hon. Member for Acton is familiar with the symposium's report as he is such an expert in this matter. The statement issued at the end of that symposium said:
A causal relationship between ETS and illness cannot be established …
There is no positive evidence that cancer and other illnesses are caused by passive smoking.
The professor of medicine at the George Washington university in the United States, Professor Witorsch, wrote in the New Zealand "Medical Journal" of November 1986:
A thorough and critical examination of the relevant literature fails to provide compelling evidence that exposure to ambient tobacco smoke produces adverse chronic health effects.
A group of scientists in New York carried out an interesting study of air samples taken from 26 office buildings and 48 restaurants. The House will be interested to learn that they concluded that a typical New York non-smoker would have to work for 450 uninterrupted hours in an office or dine continuously for 400 hours in order to be exposed to the nicotine equivalent of one cigarette. That is the extent of so-called passive smoking.
The hon. Member for Acton says that tobacco is the major pollutant, but that is not so. Far more contaminants in the air in most buildings are derived from factors other than tobacco smoke, and the sick building syndrome is extremely serious. Fungal and bacterial spores exist in the


air and all kinds of chemical poisons are released from furniture, carpets and goodness knows what else. A lot more study of that syndrome needs to be done.
The trouble is that smoke is visible and therefore gets the blame, but all the other nasty things are ignored. Those other pollutants affect people's eyes, and a runny nose and a sore throat often have nothing to do with tobacco smoke, but are caused by those other poisonous substances. The trouble is that most of our buildings are not properly air conditioned and my goodness we know that better than anyone.

Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman does not speak for Labour colleagues alone. Will he accept my invitation to join me after the debate is over for a good pipe and a chat when we can pursue the argument?

Mr. Crowther: I should be delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation so long as it is over a pint.
Far more attention needs to be paid to other causes of air pollution and air contamination rather than paying attention to the hysterical attitude that has been adopted in recent times towards tobacco smoke. Because one can see smoke it is assumed that it is the cause of the problem, but, in most cases, the cause is quite different. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this matter in due course.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am happy to say that I speak as a pipe smoker. I know that there are hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who look upon that as something worse than a venal sin. I accept that to some people smoking is irritating. But would some people, who have a pious nonsensical attitude towards smokers, accept that smokers have a right to express the huge irritation they feel when, as soon as they light up in a room, even the size of the Chamber, people immediately go into paroxysms of coughing as though they were being laid open to mustard gas.
It is true that smoking is not necessarily good for one. I do not think that drinking is, and I am not sure whether sex is. I am certainly not sure whether jogging is. One of the few times I have ever laughed at someone else's misfortune was when the man who wrote the definitive book on jogging was found dead in a ditch after he had jogged.
9.15 pm
In a modern society it is fair for restaurants to have non-smoking areas, and I agree that aircraft, buses and trains should have such areas. But what many people who are getting more and more cranky about smoking do not realise is that many of us who smoke are willing to accept that when we go into a non-smoking carriage we should not abuse people. If a smoker accidentally goes into a non-smoking carriage and forgets, and someone tells him that it is a non-smoking carriage, he does not reply in language that we used to be told could not be used in the House, but immediately desists from smoking.
In a fair and sensible society there must be a basis of give and take. It is sensible not to smoke in a theatre. I like going to theatres, particularly concerts. In a concert hall any smoker realises that it is sensible to have no smoking in the auditorium because there are musicians and singers. Those of us who smoke are not trying to force some change in the law so that we can smoke wherever we want.
When we talk about pollution in society, it is often put down to cars or smoking; aircraft, which fly over all our houses, are not mentioned. It is likely that the greatest pollutants in this world are aircraft. If we take what people who are against smoking say to its logical conclusion, we should immediately ground aircraft because the great pollutants are cars and aircraft.

Sir George Young: We made it absolutely clear that we are not banning smoking. We have asked those who smoke to confine it to private places or to designated areas in public places.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, and bearing in mind his wonderful speech in Sweden, what he wants us to do would make us act as though we were doing something furtive and always blow our smoke up the chimney so that no one else can smell it.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) rightly described what all the cranks who want to stop us exercising our freedom want us to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton pedals away like billy-o on his bicycle, getting eggs thrown at his wife and not even wanting to get the muck out of her hair because he thinks it will be good for it. His poor wife rushes about the countryside on a tandem, sucking in carbon monoxide, and aircraft and car fumes, but then my hon. Friend says that if his wonderful wife sits in a restaurant for 45 minutes she will be on the path to death and lung cancer. A bigger load of nonsense was never heard. Even with the wealth of my hon. Friend—it is a legend to us all—he would have to feed her in that restaurant night and day for 115 years before she came to any harm.
Those who are against us exercising our freedom are saying no more than, "We don't like smoking." Well. I do not like some of the nonsense on television, or some of the colours that people wear—

Sir George Young: Turn if off then.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We live in a society in which we cannot turn anything off. I hope that this House, which is meant to be a bastion of freedom, will reflect the need for non-smokers, in the name of justice, to be as tolerant towards us as we are towards them. If we accept the measure before the House, we shall set man against brother and wife against husband. Happily, in my house we all smoke. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, who comes from a family with an honourable tradition of toleration, to show some of the tolerance that his family have shown for generations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to make two simple points in response to what was in part a light-hearted but in part serious bid for tolerance towards smokers.
First, what should the presumption be? Surely it should be that we should have as pollution-free an environment as possible. People can opt out of that, but potentially harmful activities should not be allowed to take place in public—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We want a friendly society.

Mr. Hughes: Of course we do, and public places that permit smoking should allow a place in which smokers can opt out and smoke with other smokers.
Secondly, the evidence of the damage that smoking causes is becoming more apparent. I shall not go into the arguments about passive smoking, but it is now generally


accepted that smoking causes deaths. We should therefore educate the next generation to be more healthy; such education will include teaching people about the dangers of activities that pose a risk to their health. They are of course free to choose thereafter, but we should teach children how to avoid smoking.
We can never legislate against sin or against weakness but we should legislate to encourage people to do what is best, without banning activities in which those who want to opt out of the norm wish to indulge.

Mr. Hunter: Last year, when I successfully piloted my private Member's measure, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill, through the House, the Liberal Democrats did not argue in this way. They were happy to leave aside issues of tobacco smoking, so there is an inconsistency between the hon. Gentleman's argument now and that advanced by his party last year.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be taken down that road. The Bill was limited and we supported it. This new clause is specifically about smoking. It is interesting to note that it was selected whereas the one on CFCs was not. Those who want to smoke pipes, cigarettes or cigars must have the freedom to do so with others in certain areas in public, and to do so in private, but we should surely aim at the best possible environment, and smokers must accept that smoking does harm. They should take the risk themselves but not impose it on the rest of us.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Although we are being lighthearted, this is a serious debate. Although my wife and I both smoke—I more heavily than she—we bribed our children not to smoke, so I agree that you should not encourage smoking. My son still does not smoke, but my daughter does. You who are against the freedom of smokers should agree that as long as we do not try to lead people to the devil there is something to be said for the freedom of the individual, who should not be blackmailed, bludgeoned or made to feel guilty—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish the hon. Gentleman would not keep bringing me into these matters.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman might think that he needs you in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Of course I accept that the hon. Gentleman cannot imagine that Parliament would wish to make social outcasts of people who engage in an activity which, like drinking and other activities, it is correct that they should have a right as adults to choose to do. However, there is a difference from the other examples that the hon. Gentleman cited. Activities such as drinking and watching television do not necessarily have an effect on other people. Of course the person who drinks and is then sick over somebody causes a problem, but there is no such problem for those who can hold their drink.
It is possible to turn off the television and to deal with other potential pollutants, but one cannot deal with people who are smoking except by going somewhere else. Why should it be presumed that those who wish to take the healthier option by not smoking should have to move away to find their private secret corner? The presumption should be the other way and those who choose to engage

in an activity in which they are perfectly entitled to engage, even though it is potentially harmful to them and to others, should have to withdraw to do so, thereby keeping the healthier majority happy.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Much of the debate has been misconceived, in that those who wish to smoke have drawn parallels with drinking. But nobody forces drink down somebody else's throat. The debate is about the alleged right of people who wish to smoke to compel other people to breathe in the smoke when they do not wish to do so.
Once upon a time there were separate smoking rooms. Let us look at a clearer and nearer analogy. When imprisoned suffragettes refused to take food there was considerable debate, including in Parliament, about whether they should be forcibly fed. But that was to save their lives. It was not because somebody else enjoyed doing it.
In the Palace of Westminster smoking is prohibited in the Chamber, in public sessions of Select Committees and in Standing Committee. Except for that, it is impossible for hon. Members to escape from other people's smoke that they do not wish to breathe in. That applies whether they are in the Corridors, in the Library—except for one room—in the Dining Room, in Select Committees in deliberative session, travelling to take evidence away from the House in buses or taxis taking Members of the Select Committee, or in party committees.
Hon. Members who do not wish to breathe in smoke are forced to do so by the minority who wish to be at liberty to pour smoke into the air. That is what the question is about. It is not about the right of those who wish to smoke to do so, but about the right of the minority who wish to smoke to force other people to breathe it in when they do not wish to do so.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), for whom I have a great affection and respect, referred to nicotine, but it is not nicotine that does most of the damage to passive smokers; it is the tars. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who opened the debate, referred to deaths from cancer as a result of passive smoking. Probably far more serious are the deaths from asthma, which is very much an increasing manifestation.
The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rotherham was logically defective in that he pointed to other undeniable sources of atmospheric pollution as a reason for forcing people to breathe in tobacco smoke. The case for not forcing people to breathe in fungus spores or the fumes given off by furniture or carpets is a strong one, but it is not a case for forcing people to breathe in tobacco smoke when they do not want to do so.

Mr. Crowther: The hon. Gentleman will recall that nicotine was specifically referred to in only only one of the studies that I mentioned. All the others spoke about health in general terms and looked at factors other than nicotine, such as tar content. Only the New York study referred to nicotine and I do not want that to be assumed to be the case in all the studies about which I spoke. We are all forced to breathe in the carbon dioxide that other people have breathed out. We do not notice it, but that is similarly polluting the air.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: People cannot help breathing out carbon dioxide, but they can help breathing out smoke which they force other people who do not want to to breathe in. The one is unavoidable and the other is not.
The new clause and the amendment are not about preventing people who wish to from smoking, although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was inaccurate when he said that his daughter did not smoke. If she shares her father's house, she has to smoke, like it or not. She is merely a passive smoker rather than an active smoker. Her medical history later in life is likely to be less favourable as a result of her parents' habit—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: —whether they like it or not, than if she were not living in a household where she had to breathe in the smoke. Her medical history will not be representative of somebody who will be exposed to tobacco smoke. It will be representative of somebody who is compelled to breathe in the smoke while she lives in her parents' house. I cannot see how she can possibly avoid it. This debate is about the right of people who want to exercise a pleasure—there is no reason why they should not exercise it as mature people—in circumstances where they do not force people who do not wish to do so to breathe it in.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am a non-smoker and am broadly in agreement with the new clause, but it does not define "public place". For example, what about a racecourse or a football ground?

Mr. Simon Hughes: It says "enclosed".

Mr. Wareing: What is "enclosed"? A football ground could be defined as "enclosed" and so could a racecourse. That deficiency must be remedied. Although I am in favour of the principle behind the new clause, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) should look at it again and define it more clearly.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Amendment No. 327 deals with "Smoking in Public Places". If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will find considerable elucidation of new clause 59. If it were in any way defective, there are later opportunities for correction. This is the right Bill and the right time for incorporating this measure, even though, as is often the case, it may need refinement at a later stage, including in the other place.

Mr. Anthony Steen: The issue is not the danger about which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) spoke, but the simple one that I do not like smokers. I do not like the smell of smoke, which makes my eyes water and my clothes smell and causes me to lose my voice. The smoking sections on British Rail are so open to the non-smoking section that, as I travel up and down to Devon, this dreadful smell of smoke has progressively worked its way into my throat and, as a result, over the last week, I have progressively lost my voice. I unwisely spent an hour in the Members' Smoking Room this afternoon and that virtually finished it off.
I see no reason why I should be subjected to the tobacco smoke from the pipe of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). I remind

my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak of a short exchange we had in the Harcourt Room a few months ago when I was entertaining some guests. It was lunchtime, about 1.30 pm, and the table at which my hon. Friend was sitting was, as it were, lighting up. I remonstrated with him. I told him that I did not want to smell the smoke of all the smokers at that table. I explained that I did not want all the food that my friends and I were enjoying to be ruined by the dreadful smell of the pipe smoke of my lion. Friend or that of his guests.
My hon. Friend was extremely understanding of my plight, although slightly resentful of my intervention. He properly advised the people at his table that it might be prudent not to incur the wrath of such an articulate campaigner as myself on anti-smoking. I am glad to say that everyone at the table, including my hon. Friend, extinguished his pipe or cigarette. We have had a continuation of that discussion.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I shall remind my hon. Friend of what I said. When my hon. Friend intervened, I told my friends, "I'm sorry, but this man is a bit of a crank about smoking. Rather than have trouble with someone who is going to get tired and emotional about it, and as we have almost finished our meal, let's let this nut have his way and we shall go outside." Those were the very words that I used.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates the intolerance and indifference of some to others in this place. He has shown that pipe smokers and cigarette smokers have no idea of the discomfort that it may cause to others. That, of course, applies also to cigar smokers. My hon. Friend has shown that he has no idea of the anger, irritation and discomfort that he creates by his pipe smoking. The aim of the new clause is to make the nation realise that we who support it have nothing against pipe or cigarette smokers. In public places, however, they must not impose their smoke on the increasing mass of people who do not want to smoke. I am not concerned for the moment about the health risk, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred. That is an important issue that we can debate on another occasion.
The real issue is that I do not want to smell the smoke that comes from the pipe of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak, for example. I see no reason why, in a dining room in this place or in a restaurant elsewhere, I should have to suffer the smell of smoke. Most Members of this place are not as intolerant as my hon. Friend and not so insensitive of the wishes of the nation. I am sure that most people would not support his line.
My hon. Friend and others should be allowed to smoke wherever they like in their own homes. If they want their clothes, their children's clothes, the upholstery of their furniture and their cars to smell, that is their choice and they are entitled to have that smell. If that is their wish, let them have that nasty smell around them. They have no right, however, to expect the public to make way for them if the majority do not want it.
It is argued that smoking should be an exception, and that the presumption should be that of non-smokers. Hon. Members should be allowed to smoke in public places, but not at the inconvenience of others. The attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak shows the intolerance of smokers. I hope that the House, with the help of the Minister, will ensure that the vast majority of people who


believe that smoking is dangerous, bad for health and most unpleasant for those who do not like it, will have the right to choose to avoid smoke.
The new clause is brilliantly drafted, as we would expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). The House should give it a fair wind.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A fresh wind.

Mr. Steen: That is right. The Government could do a great service to the nation by ensuring that the vast majority of people who do not smoke do not have the pipe smoke of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak imposed on them in the way that he would wish.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have been tempted briefly to contribute to the debate because of the slightly aggressive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), although in an intervention he had an equally aggressive response from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark).
I am a non-smoker, or, to be more precise, I am an ex-smoker. It is usually among ex-smokers that there is the greatest hypocrisy about smoking. I hope that I will not be guilty of such hypocrisy. I wonder how much hypocrisy there has been already this evening. I managed to give up smoking more than two years ago, and since then I have occasionaly wondered whether I did the best thing. I have had to have two nasal operations. My general practitioner tells me that, previously, my nasal passages were anaesthetised by cigarette smoke, but now fresh air is getting into them. I very much hope that the surgeon was successful in my last operation and that it will not become an annual occurrence.
Much reference has been made to the smells caused by cigarette smoking. As a result of my operations and of giving up smoking, I am sure that I have an improved sense of smell. However, I do not find the pipe smoke from my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak objectionable—indeed, I quite like it. I find pipe smoke preferable to cigarette smoke. What I find objectionable in this place—and I have only noticed it since I gave up cigarette smoking—is body odour. It is very prevalent when we press together in the Division Lobbies late at night in the warmer weather. All sorts of smells can be regarded as offensive. Perhaps it is all in the eye of the beholder.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) referred to the independent study on smoking and health. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) rightly responded with a quotation from it to the effect that none of the studies could be taken as unequivocal. I did not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton placed very great store on the study. In fact, the most specific direct quotation that he cited from the study was:
It might, however, amount to".
Have hon. Members ever heard such a woolly set of words in what is supposed to be an independent, authoritative report?
We are dealing with prejudices. This debate is a mirror of a debate I attended in a previous incarnation when I was a member of the Cardiff city council. It decided to become a non-smoking body. Some of my hon. Friends might be inspired by that message. No good reason was advanced in the debate for imposing a non-smoking rule. In the fine

city hall of the capital city of Wales, with lofty ceilings in imposing rooms, there is no good reason for imposing such a rule. The same applies to places with air conditioning. I have heard no good cause, only what I suspect to be prejudice, for making these no-smoking demands.
Sometimes I get the impression that smokers realise that the balance of fashion has changed and are much more willing to accede to the wishes of non-smokers when requested not to smoke or to ask first before they smoke in the presence of other people. I am generalising and there may be exceptions, but I imagine that the vast majority of smokers would not go into somebody's house and start smoking without asking permission. There seems to be a lot more give and take on the part of smokers than there often is on the part of those who are agin it.
We could make more progress if there was more balance in the argument. The anti-smoking lobby should consider whether its negative and hysterical approach to smoking is counter-productive. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton talked about banning smoking in public places except in designated areas. He should withdraw the clause so that the matter can be given more mature consideration and perhaps equal provision can be made for both sides. There should be freedom in this. There should not necessarily be designated places for one group, but designated places for both groups. Let us have a balanced approach to the problem, not a display of prejudice.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has bravely brought forward his all-party new clause. We have had a useful discussion in which the contradictory views of those who support the rights of smokers and non-smokers have been put forward.
I am a life-long non-smoker. I like to think that I am a tolerant person and I recognise the right of people to smoke if they so choose. But there is no doubt that in public places such as restaurants, cinemas and bars an area must be set aside for those who do not smoke and, understandably, find smoking objectionable.
I do not accept all the arguments put forward in support of the sick building syndrome. I have spent much of my political career in the archetypal smoke-filled rooms. When I was a member of the Hull city council Labour group, by the end of one of our evening meetings, which often lasted until midnight, I could not see the chairman due to a combination of smoke and my streaming eyes. We no longer care to tolerate such an atmosphere.
I am pleased that a reasonable attitude on both sides, not legislation or coercion, has led to more and more non-smoking areas being set aside. I am not sure whether society is ready for the new clause, but, as fewer and fewer people smoke and as more and more people want the right at work and in their leisure time to have areas set aside for non-smokers, that will be the inevitable course.

Mr. Crowther: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates the essential difference between setting aside a place for non-smokers, to which he is now referring, and setting aside a place for smokers, which is what the new clause is about. To my delight, my hon. Friend begins with the assumption that smoking is allowed in places other


than those where it is not allowed. I am happy with that, but the phraseology of the new clause is precisely the opposite.

Mr. Morley: My point is that there is a trend in society as a result of which smokers are now in the minority and that trend must be reflected by provision in our public spaces for smokers and non-smokers.

Mr. Steen: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman travels, as we all do, on trains and planes. Does he agree that in the past 10 years the non-smoking areas in trains and planes are full and the smoking areas are increasingly empty? Does he further agree that that needs to be reflected in our public transport policy with more places for non-smokers and designated pens for smokers?

Mr. Morley: I would not use the hon. Gentleman's terminology, but I understand from people who deal with airline tickets that there is over-demand for airline seats in the no-smoking section of aeroplanes and under-demand for the smoking section. That has caused many airlines to reconsider their policy on the number of seats that they put aside for non-smokers. I think that the same will happen with British Rail because of the changing trend.
The trend towards non-smoking is unstoppable. I do not want people to be coerced. I recognise a person's right to smoke and I believe that smokers recognise that smoking causes offence to non-smokers. They appreciate that, in public areas, the rights of non-smokers must be respected and that facilities must be provided.

Mr. Trippier: It is perhaps unfortunate for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that, out of the eight Ministers in the Department of the Environment, I am the only one who smokes. I am not proud of it, but I am not ashamed of it either, and I am proud to be a member of a political party which believes in freedom above all else. I do not want to introduce party politics into the debate. I agree with much of what the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) have said, as I shall try to explain.
The Government support the view that non-smokers should not be obliged to be exposed to tobacco smoke when visiting public places. but we do not believe what hon. Members propose in the new clause is necessary or—what is more to the point—enforceable.
Government policy has been developed in the light of medical evidence and aims to create a non-smoking environment with facilities for those who wish to smoke, by encouraging voluntary policy on smoking in public places. That is in contrast to the use of legislation. Our approach is flexible and results in policies which are tailor made for each situation and respond to public demand.
The common misconception is that the voluntary approach is less effective than the statutory approach. That is not true, as voluntary measures arise from popular demand and are accepted.
The statutory ban proposed by the hon. Members who have put their names to the new clause would create overwhelming difficulties. For example, who would enforce the legislation? Do we want to divert the resources of the police or environmental health officers to do the

work? The legislation would apply to so many thousands of premises that detection and enforcement of such a blanket ban would be utterly impossible.
The Government have made it clear that they wholeheartedly encourage the implementation of smoking policies and the provision of smoke-free areas. Progress during the past year has been encouraging. Many major companies and organisations have introduced or strengthened smoking policies. Smoke-free areas are widely available in cinemas, shops, restaurants and on public transport. Some cinema chains and airlines provide completely smoke-free facilities. Even such traditional no-go areas for smoking restriction as pubs and betting shops are rethinking their approach where consumer demand for no-smoking facilities is apparent.
Voluntary policies are the best way to proceed because they are produced in response to consumer or employee demand, they cater for the needs of smokers and non-smokers and they can more easily be tailored to individual areas and workplaces. Voluntary policies usually have a greater chance of success than those imposed by legislation, as they secure local commitment by management, staff and the public.
When banning smoking is necessary for reasons of safety and hygiene, we have not hesitated to introduce legislation—for example, in the preparation of food or on the underground.
Many hon. Members who considered the Bill carefully in Committee are smokers. It is interesting that this issue has been raised on Report, as it did not arise at any juncture—

Mr. Morley: It did.

Mr. Trippier: To my recollection, it never arose in Committee. I apologise if I am wrong. I believe that the voluntary controls adopted by the Government are the best way forward. As we have seriously considered the rest of the Bill, I hope that those hon. Members who have put their names to the new clause will not press it.

Sir George Young: This has been a useful and, at times, somewhat heated debate. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he was in favour of freedom, but it became clear during the debate that there are two freedoms which are incompatible. It is no answer for my hon. Friend to say that he is in favour of freedom without saying whether he is in favour of the freedom of those who wish to smoke in public and impose that pollution on others or in favour of the freedom of those who do not wish to inhale polluted air. We are all in favour of freedom, but there is a choice to be made and a priority to be determined.
The principle is: who has to give way? Who has to go to a designated area? Should it be the majority who do not smoke or the minority who do? What is the premise from which we start? The new clause says that the premise is that, by and large, people have the right to breathe unpolluted air and those who wish to pollute it should go to a designated area and pollute it together.
The new clause, which I proposed some time ago, has the support of most of those who smoke. I gave the figures at the beginning of the debate—more than 80 per cent. of smokers support these measures. Yes, there is intolerance and prejudice. We must decide who is being intolerant arid who is being prejudiced. We argue that we are not imposing anything on anyone. The imposition is made not by us but by those who wish to smoke in public places,


with all the adverse consequences that were so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and by my almost speechless hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), whose vocal chords, we understand, are disintegrating because of the volume of smoke on British Rail services and in the Harcourt Room and the Smoking Room.
I am not sure that now is the right time to push further forward the frontiers of social legislation. I have not been totally reassured by the response by my hon. Friend the Minister. The Government have a role to play in setting an example and giving advice to others. I do not agree that this measure is unenforceable. We already have legislation to prevent smoking on London Transport services and buses, and it is self-enforcing. The Government have introduced a range of legislation—for example, covering dogs wearing collars and people having to keep the areas outside their shops free of litter—which will be much more difficult to enforce than the provisions in new clause 59.
I do not wish to press the new clause to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 131.

Division No. 191]
[9.57 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Beggs, Roy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beith, A. J.
Maginnis, Ken


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boateng, Paul
Michael, Alun


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Callaghan, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Flynn, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Derek
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hood, Jimmy



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and Mr. Anthony Steen.


Ingram, Adam



Jessel, Toby





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Crowther, Stan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Dixon, Don


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Freeman, Roger


Butler, Chris
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fry, Peter





Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Alastair
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Portillo, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim


Hague, William
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hanley, Jeremy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Rowe, Andrew


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Haynes, Frank
Sackville, Hon Tom


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp;, B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Speed, Keith


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Speller, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Irvine, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jack, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stevens, Lewis


Kennedy, Charles
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Key, Robert
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Kilfedder, James
Summerson, Hugo


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Trippier, David


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Trotter, Neville


Lightbown, David
Waller, Gary


Lilley, Peter
Watts, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Lord, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mans, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Monro, Sir Hector



Moss, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Mudd, David
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Nelson, Anthony



Nicholls, Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Environmental Protection Bill and Lords Amendments to the Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Environmental Protection Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Clause 1

PRELIMINARY

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 23, leave out
'(carried on by any person)'
and insert
'carried on in Great Britain, whether on premises or by means of mobile plant,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 27 to 32, amendment No. 240, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, leave out from 'air' to end of line 13 and insert
'or land (but not water)'.
Government amendments Nos. 33 to 36.
Amendment No. 147, in clause 6, page 8, line 10, after 'applicant', insert
'has assessed the likely effects of the process on the environment in an adequate manner and'.
Government amendments Nos. 39, 42 to 45, 50 to 54, 56 to 58.
Amendment No. 293, in clause 20, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
'(6) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the enforcing authority.'.
Government amendments Nos. 59 to 61.
Amendment No. 294, in clause 28, page 29, line 2, at end insert—
'(9A) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the enforcing authority.'.
Government amendments 91 and 92.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Most of the Government amendments in this group are minor drafting amendments, while others have been tabled to give effect to commitments made in Committee.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We welcome some of the Government amendments that meet commitments given to us in Committee, but the Minister will have noted amendment No. 147, standing in our names, which raises the important question of environmental impact assessments. The Minister should not be surprised to see the amendment on the amendment paper because we discussed the matter in Committee, and the Government stated that they would be bringing forward regulations under schedule 1 to the Bill, requiring applicants for authorisations under integrated pollution control to furnish information about the effects of the processes for which they were applying on the environment. We still feel that it would be better if that part of the regulations was not left in that form but written into the Bill.
I hope that, even if the Minister is unwilling to accept our amendment tonight, he will look at the matter again; otherwise, the impact of integrated pollution control in protecting the environment will not be maximised. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive assurance that he will look at the matter and keep an open mind, and perhaps in another place, when there is more time to debate the matter, he will reconsider environmental assessments. If we are to make real progress, integrated pollution control and environmental assessments ought to go hand in hand.

Mr. Hunter: With the utmost brevity, I wish to refer to my amendments Nos. 293 and 294.
I belong to the school of thought that believes that industry creates the wealth that pays for welfare services. I believe that industry will likewise ultimately pay for the protection of our environment. My fear, which I expressed in Committee, is that, as it stands, the Bill will allow the green nutters to get on parade and have a field day of litigation against industry, on entirely inconsequential grounds.
Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 simply seek to establish a filter against unnecessary third-party campaigns of accusations against industrial processes. That point was not sufficiently taken on board in Committee and I make no apology for referring to it, albeit in such little detail.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is true that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) raised the subject of amendment No. 147 in Committee. I am sympathetic to the intention of the amendment. Indeed, I undertake to bring forward regulations that will require the operator of a process to include in his application an assessment of the likely effect on the environment of releases from the process. That is an appropriate, flexible but certain way of delivering what the hon. Lady wishes.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the point. Why is he so resistant to writing it into the Bill?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Some matters are better achieved by writing them into the Bill where they are set in concrete and some matters are better left to regulations because they may be subject to amendment and changes in the light of experience which would not alter the effect of what is required. That would build in flexibility to suit the action to circumstances. However, that in no way weakens our commitment to require from an applicant an assessment of the likely consequences on the environment of releases. I assure the hon. Lady that the final regulations will fully put into place what she requests in amendment No. 147. Perhaps with that in mind she will consider not pressing her amendment.
Unfortunately, I must continue to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). We discussed new clause 3 on Monday, and we remain convinced that in this case, if, an individual has the necessary evidence to mount a case, he should be free to do so without recourse to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We must rely on the courts to deliver justice in this case.

Mr. Hunter: In coming to that conclusion, what assessment did my hon. Friend make of the cost of that process to industry? Does he accept that innumerable people will be likely to challenge an industrial process on the basis of no technical knowledge whatever and that that will result in a cost to industry and to those who indulge in litigation? It will not help the environmental cause but merely incur costs.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I remain of the view that the commitment of industry to pollution control is the surest defence against such litigation. I also believe that access to the courts without necessarily resorting to the DPP is fully in line with other parts of the Bill. I must stick by the line that we took on Monday, which was accepted by the House then.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'whatsoever' to end of line 29 and insert
'(including, with or without other activities, the keeping of a substance);
Great Britain" includes so much of the adjacent territorial sea as is, or is treated as, relevant territorial waters for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part III of the Water Act 1989 or, as respects Scotland, Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; and
mobile plant" means plant which is designed to move or be moved whether on roads or otherwise.'.

No. 28, in page 3, line 7, after second 'authorisation', insert
'for a process (whether on premises or by means of mobile plant)'.

No. 29, in page 3, line 11, after 'medium', insert
'whether it is released into it within or outside Great Britain'.

No. 30, in page 4, line 1, leave out 'any form of energy' and insert 'electricity or heat'.

No. 31, in page 4, line 21, after 'substance', insert 'as a substance'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 3

EMISSIONS ETC. LIMITS AND QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Mr. Pike: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
'(2A) No regulations shall be made under subsection (2) above in respect of air pollution before the laying before Parliament by the Secretary of State of a document setting out a national transport policy for the purpose of reducing harmful emissions to the air from motor vehicle and promoting forms of transport which minimise the pollution of the environment due to the release of substances into any environmental medium.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 148, in page 5, line 32, at end insert
'and any plan shall be accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which shall include an assessment of the likely significant effects of the plan on the environment.'.
No. 149, in page 5, line 36, after 'revised', insert `including the Environmental Statement'.

Mr. Pike: Given the time, my speech will be shorter than I intended if we had reached this set of amendments at a reasonable hour. That does not mean that the proposals contained in the amendments are not extremely important. I am sure that you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that amendment No. 135 has so many different facets that one could have a major debate on the items covered by it.
It is extremely important that the Government should consider transport policy and fuel emissions far more seriously than they have to date. We are all aware that some progress has been made on lead emissions with the gradual move towards lead-free petrol—the tax incentive on the price of that petrol has encouraged the move towards it. Lead-free petrol, however, deals only with the problem of emissions from petrol and diesel vehicles, but we must remember other considerations. The Minister will accept without hesitation that emissions from vehicles and power stations represent the two major contributors towards global warming and it is important to remember the implications of that for the world as we approach the next century. Whether we are considering catalytic converters or lean-burn engines, much more positive steps must be taken to encourage developments to tackle the problem of fuel emissions.
If we had a proper transport policy that provided a good, efficient public transport system, which attracted people away from their own vehicles, it would make a major contribution to combating pollution. We must have a cheap, efficient and reliable public transport system and the necessary infrastructure to uphold it.
We need only walk around the streets of London to appreciate the problems caused by vehicle emissions and their effect on global warming. We should consider what we are breathing in as a result of massive traffic jams caused by people using their private cars when they should be attracted to public transport. I am not one of those who

believes that it is all right for me to use my car while wanting to introduce regulations to prohibit others from using their private vehicles. Some people believe that it is all right for them to use their cars, but want action taken to stop compulsorily other people from using their own. We should not adopt such a policy.
If we are to have the necessary integrated public transport system, massive public investment is needed in the buses, the underground and the railway system. We should all recognise that such investment would be good not only for our transport system, but for energy conservation and the environment as a result of subsequent reductions in pollution. That is why the implications of amendment No. 135 are extremely important.
If time permitted, I should like to have gone into greater detail about all the aspects of those different policies, which are all part of the same extremely important argument, and must be the direction in which we ultimately move. They have extreme relevance to the Bill and if the Government were to accept this positive amendment, they would make a great contribution towards not just protecting the environment, but enhancing it—as the Minister of State has said repeatedly during the debate on the Bill. If we were to pass amendment No. 135, I am sure that we should be doing that.
Amendment Nos. 148 and 149 relate to providing environmental assessment statements and considering the implications of emissions covered in clause 3, and are extremely important. Having been a member of the Select Committee on the Environment for the past five years, I have learnt that when one deals with one environmental problem, one can create another. Energy is probably the biggest single example of that. If we say that we do not want fossil fuel power stations, do we turn to nuclear power, wind power or barrages, which each have problems? If we change one problem for another, we need carefully to assess the implications involved.
As the Third world rapidly develops, one of the biggest factors during the next 10 years and into the next century will be a massive increase in the demand for energy throughout the world. We all know that pollution and environmental problems do not recognise national boundaries. Therefore, we must ensure that we consider that aspect positively.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England strongly supports the assessments that we seek in those two amendments. It gave one example, which we looked at closely in the Select Committee on the Environment, and we previously dealt with it in a different way—flue gas desulphurisation. If we want to deal with the problems created by coal-fired power stations—as shown in the two Select Committee reports dealing with acid rain—there are a number of options, and two major ones. One is FGD, which creates a demand for large quantities of limestone, and which has environmental implications because of the quantities required.
If we were to start talking about excavating large areas of the Peak district, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would fight with every ounce of his body to ensure that we did not destroy that part of the country, and I would fully support him. But we much acknowledge that there will be a demand for limestone, which in turn will create large


quantities of gypsum, some of which can be used, some of which cannot. Therefore, while that might seem an easy option, it may be necessary to look for another.
If we were to have an assessment, we would consider the matter objectively and decide whether, environmentally, such a programme was the best solution for dealing with emissions from power stations. We must decide on the best environmental solutions to such problems in a realistic and balanced way.
All those issues are extremely important and I could speak at great length about all of them. I have made an extremely brief case tonight, but I hope that the Minister will respond to it in the same positive spirit in which I have made it.

Mr. Trippier: I much appreciate the spirit behind the amendments to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has spoken, but I must ask him to be a little more patient, especially about amendment No. 135. As I have said several times, we propose in the autumn of this year to bring forward a White Paper that will deal with all the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We shall not duck them. Those issues will have to embrace the environmental consequences of responsibilities that go far wider than those of the Department of the Environment—this amendment, for instance, concerns the Department of Transport.
I have great difficulty with amendments Nos. 148 and 149, although I understand the spirit behind them. I suggest that they would cause a bureaucratic nightmare. The amendments call for a full environmental statement every time a plan is amended. The first plan that we intend to introduce will limit national emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from large combustion plants. I doubt whether Opposition Members would challenge the need for that. We are doing many things on this front, but the clear-cut demands of the amendments would be, as I have said, a bureaucratic nightmare.
I am not certain what information would go into the statements. Are we, for instance, concerned with local effects or transboundary effects when we are dealing with secondary pollutants that produce, say, low-level ozone? The immediate local impact may depend on the climatic conditions and so be difficult to predict in the short term.
What is the purpose of the statements? What do readers who are unhappy with them do? Do they appeal? If so, to whom? What requirements for discussion are there to be?
The amendments are unnecessary and I urge the House to reject them. I hope that we shall meet the spirit of the main amendment with the publication of the White Paper.

Mr. Pike: I believe that the issues in amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are important. I hope that they, too, will be incorporated in the White Paper presented to the Tory party conference later this year. We need to show publicly that all the implications of environmental matters have been examined.
I wait to see what the White Paper does about the subject of amendment No. 135. I also wait to see what action the Government take on it. If the Government do not deal objectively and properly with those issues in the White Paper, and do not follow that up with action, they will be major issues at the next general election. I believe that the public will recognise that the Labour party has the policies to deal with transport and pollution problems.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

DISCHARGE AND SCOPE OF FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 6, line 5 leave out 'or apparatus'.

No. 33, in page 6, line 38 leave out `the authority's area' and insert
'the area of each authority affected by the direction',—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 6

AUTHORISATIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'in Great Britain'.

No. 35, in page 7, line 42, leave out 'in pursuance of' and insert 'under'.

No. 36, in page 7, line 45, leave out subsection (2).

No. 37, in page 8, line 2, leave out from 'authority' to `Schedule' in line 3 and insert 'in accordance with'.

No. 38, in page 8, line 15, at end insert—
'(6A) The enforcing authority shall, as respects each authorisation in respect of which it has functions under this Part, from time to time but not less frequently than once in every period of four years, carry out a review of the conditions of the authorisation.
(6B) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, substitute for the period for the time being specified in subsection (6A) above such other period as he thinks fit.'.

No. 39, in page 8, leave out lines 18 to 26.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 7

CONDITIONS OF AUTHORISATIONS

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 8, line 35, at end insert
'but no condition shall be imposed for the purpose only of securing the health of persons at work (within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974).'.

No. 152, in page 9, line 44, leave out 'include conditions' and insert
', without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, include conditions—
(a)'.

No. 153, in page 9, line 46, at end insert
`; and
(b) requiring advance notification of any proposed change in the manner of carrying on the process'.

No. 41, in page 10, line 6, at end insert—
'( ) It shall be the duty of enforcing authorities to have regard to any guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the application of subsections (2) and (7) above as to the techniques and environmental options that are appropriate for any description of prescribed process.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 8

FEES AND CHARGES FOR AUTHORISATIONS

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 10, line 24, leave out 'the amendment' and insert
', or of applications for, the variation'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 9

ALTERATION OR TRANSFER OF AUTHORISED PROCESS

Amendment made: No. 155, in page 11, line 28, leave out clause 9.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 10

REVOCATION OF AUTHORISATION

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 12, line 35, after 'on', insert 'or nor.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 11

VARIATION NOTICES

Amendment made: No. 156, in page 13, line 2, leave out clause 11.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 12

ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 13, line 39 leave out `in pursuance of and insert 'under'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 13

PROHIBITION NOTICES

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 14, line 11 leave out `in pursuance of and insert 'under'.

No. 45, in page 14, line 13 leave out first 'the' and insert `an imminent'.[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 14

APPEALS AS RESPECTS AUTHORISATIONS AND AGAINST VARIATION, ENFORCEMENT AND PROHIBITION NOTICES

Amendments made: No. 157, in page 15, line I leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
'(c) a person who has been refused a variation of an authorisation on an application under section (Variation of conditions etc: applications by holders of authorisations);'.

No. 46, in page 15, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
'(3) Where an appeal under this section is made to the Secretary of State—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer any matter involved in the appeal to a person appointed by him for the purpose; or
(b) the Secretary of State may, instead of determining the appeal himself, direct that the appeal or any matter involved in it shall be determined by a person appointed by him for the purpose;

and a person appointed under paragraph (b) above for the purpose of an appeal shall have the same powers under subsection (4), (5) or (6) below as the Secretary of State.'

No. 47, in page 15, line 11, at end insert—
'( ) An appeal under this section shall, if and to the extent required by regulations under subsection (9) below, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under that subsection.'.

No. 48, in page 15, line 12, after 'requests' insert 'or the Secretary of State so decides'.

No. 49, in page 15, line 12, after 'be' insert `or continue'.

No. 158, in page 15, line 18 leave out from 'or' to 'the' in line 20 and insert
`the variation of an authorisation, may direct a enforcing authority to grant the authorisation or to vary'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 15

APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF INSPECTOR AND OTHER INSPECTORS

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 16, line 24, leave out 'council' and insert `authority'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 16

POWERS OF INSPECTORS AND OTHERS

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 16, line 37, leave out from beginning to second 'the' and insert `purposes of.

No. 52, in page 18, line 16, leave out from `to' to `powers' in line 17 and insert `mobile plant an inspector shall have, in circumstances corresponding to those specified in subsection (2) above'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 18

OBTAINING OF INFORMATION FROM PERSONS AND AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 19, line 39 after `following', insert `authorities'.

No. 54, in page 19, line 44, leave out from 'person' to `as' in line 46 and insert',
require that person to furnish to the authority such information which the authority reasonably considers that it needs'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 19

REGISTERS OF INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 20, line 5, leave out clause 19.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 20

OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 21, line 15, at end insert—
`(aa) to fail to give the notice required by section (Transfer of Authorisation) (2) above;'.

No. 56, in page 21, line 20, leave out 'or 17'.

No. 159, in page 21, line 37, leave out 'amendment' and insert 'variation'.

No. 57, in page 22, line 6, leave out from 'paragraph' to `(f)' in line 7 and insert
`(aa)'.

No. 58, in page 22, line 13, leave out from 'above' to `shall' in line 14.—[ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 22

ONUS OF PROOF AS REGARDS TECHNIQUES AND EVIDENCE

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 22, line 32, leave out `by virtue of and insert `under'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 24

POWER OF CHIEF INSPECTOR TO REMEDY HARM

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 23, line 14, leave out `his' and insert `their'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 25

AUTHORISATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY CONTROLS

Amendments made: No. 160, in page 23, line 20, after 'shall' insert 'at any time'.

No. 161, in page 23, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

No. 61, in page 24, line 7, leave out from 'on' to 'authorisation' in line 8 and insert 'under an'.

No. 162, in page 24, line 12, leave out from 'shall' to 'vary' in line 13 and insert
'exercise its powers under section (Variation of authorisations by enforcing authority) above so as to'.

No. 239, in page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

Clause 26

AUTHORITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PART

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 25, line 29, after `disposal' insert 'or regulation'.

No. 93, in page 25, line 38, after 'collects,', insert `keeps,'.

No. 65, in page 25, line 39, leave out
'under the Companies Act 1985'.

No. 109, in page 25, line 42, at beginning insert `either'.

No. 66, in page 25, line 42, leave out
'under the Companies Act 1985'.

No. 67, in page 25, line 45, after 'and', insert
'company" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985 and'.

No. 68, in page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
'(6) In this Part, in its application to Scotland, "river purification authority" means a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951.
 (7) It shall be the duty of each authority which is both a waste regulation authority and a waste disposal authority for the purposes of this Part to submit to the Secretary of State for approval details of the administrative arrangements which it has made for separating its functions as a waste regulation authority from its functions as a waste disposal authority.'.—[ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 27

TRANSITION TO WASTE DISPOSAL COMPANIES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 151, in page 26, line 25, leave out 'undertakings' and insert 'undertaking'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 28

PROHIBITION ON UNAUTHORISED DEPOSIT, TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL ETC. OF WASTE

Amendments made: No. 163, in page 27, line 42, after 'deposited', insert 'in or'.

No. 164, in page 27, line 46, at beginning insert 'in or'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

Mr. Paul Marland: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 28, line 18, at end insert—
'(5) The Secretary of State shall exercise his power under subsection (3) above to make regulations excluding from the controls imposed by waste management licenses those ferrous and non-ferrous scrap dealers and processors whose business

is to recycle such scrap as the Department of Trade and Industry may classify as non-hazardous in a list which it shall publish, based on customs and excise tariff classifications.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 100, in clause 39, page 41, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) Without predudice to the provisions of any regulations made, or having effect as if made, under section 55 below, it shall be the duty of each waste collection authority, if requested by a harbour authority or terminal operator, to arrange for the collection of any industrial waste deposited at reception facilities—

(a) provided in accordance with the Prevention of Pollution (Reception Facilities) Order 1984 for vessels using the harbour or terminal; or
(b) provided in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 for ships using the harbour or terminal;

unless other arrangements for the collection of the waste are made by the waste disposal authority whose area includes he area of the waste collection authority.'.
No. 328, in clause 44, page 49, line 26, at end insert—
'(c) to send to the planning authorities for the areas covered or affected by the plan a copy of the plan or, as the case may be, particulars of the modification to be considered in relation to development plans prepared for those areas.'.
No. 142, in clause 54, page 58, line 43, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 44.
Government amendments No. 77 and 78.
No. 298, in clause 65, page 70, line 10, at end insert—
', nor scrap metal, whether ferrous or non-ferrous, handled in the normal course of business by a scrap dealer registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964.'.
No. 299, in page 70, line 12, at end insert—
', except that the presumption shall not apply where metal is sold for a consideration to a scrap metal dealer registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964'.
Government amendment Nos. 79, 80, 196, 197, 330 and 123 to 125.

Mr. Marland: I realise that there is much pressure on time, but I have sat here since 4.30 and I am anxious to put my speech on the record. I shall start by making my own position absolutely clear. I am involved in the metal recycling industry which enables me to speak in the debate with a certain amount of understanding and first-hand knowledge of the industry.
Recycling of all types makes a massive contribution to the environment, not only by minimising waste and keeping the countryside clean, but by making a tremendous contribution to saving our finite resources. To give the House an idea of the scale of this industry, I am pleased to be able to say that, in Britain, metal recyclers process or recycle 4,000 old motor cars a week. That is more than 2 million a year. They also recycle 150,000 white goods items—cookers, refrigerators and washing machines—a week, and 50 per cent. of all the copper used in the United Kingdom is recycled, as is 40 per cent. of all the aluminium used in the country.
The energy savings from recycling are just as spectacular as the amounts involved. By recycling aluminium, for example, the energy used is only one twentieth of that required for refining bauxite. For every 1,000 tonnes of ferrous scrap turned into steel, there is a saving of 140,000 gallons of fuel oil. Those are big and impressive figures for what is a big and impressive industry.
When the Bill was in Committee, there was much satisfaction in the recycling industry for the supportive


remarks by the Government. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), will remember from previous debates that there is great concern in the metal recycling industry that scrap metal is defined in the Bill as waste, and that there is a strong possibility that it could be treated in the same way as dangerous chemical waste.
The local authority environmental health inspector is free to interpret the regulations as he sees fit, and if he decides to be over-officious he could make the life of a metal recycler very difficult and seriously inhibit his business. Scrap metal is not waste but a valuable secondary resource, and it is wrongly defined in the Bill.
The World Health Organisation defines waste as something which the owner no longer wants at a given place and time and which has no current or perceived market value. The Japanese, who usually get most things right, say that waste refers to something the owner of which cannot use or sell for any countervalues. The Bureau International de la Recuperation, the international arm of the recycling industry, says that waste is redundant goods, by-products or residues that have no value and must be disposed of at cost.
I know that the Department of the Environment will not accept that definition, for in a letter to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) my hon. Friend the Member for Wells says that the key test of whether something is waste is the attitude of the person who produces the waste. The letter says that if the holder of the substance, goods or article wishes to dispose of it, then it is waste to him. Whether or not the waste has any value or can be of use to somebody else does not affect the fact that it is waste. What about scraps of gold in a jewellery-making business, or a five-year-old motor car that the owner wishes to dispose of in order to buy a new one? I do not believe that a five-year-old motor car is waste, but the definition in the Bill, and in the letter, makes it so. Clearly, they are not waste, and neither are the metal turnings from an engineering plant. They are valuable secondary raw materials and should be classified as such.
The hon. Member for Rochdale is assured in the letter that there are some exceptions to the rule, such as waste paper and textiles or rags. They are not classified as waste as they do not pose an environmental problem, but some rags and waste paper are impregnated with some pretty nasty substances and, when they come to be disposed of, if they are burnt, they can give off some unpleasant odours. The Government are seriously out of line with what the industry believes in, and what normal commonsense dictates.
In Committee, I tried to raise the status of some of this non-toxic waste through the attitude of the holder of the material to the material that he held. His attitude to the material would determine its legal status. If the material was unwanted, and could not be sold—if the owner had to take it away, for example—fair enough, it was waste. If the material arose out of the holder's business activity, such as waste paper, off-cuts of aluminium or metal turnings from boring steel, and had a resale value, it should be classified as a secondary raw material. That is slap in line with the BIR proposal.
There would be categories of secondary raw materials, just as there are categories of waste, be they hazardous or

non-hazardous, and they would be treated accordingly. I pointed out to the Committee the sheer size and value to our balance of payments of the exports of secondary raw materials and the frequency of transfrontier shipments within the EEC suggest that this demanded that something should be done to clarify the situation. Sadly, the suggestion of introducing the classification of secondary raw materials was firmly rejected.
To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells, he said that if I could find cases where local authorities had been too heavy handed and had inhibited the development of the recycling business, I was to get in touch with him, and he would try to do something about it. Since I last spoke to him about this subject, I have visited scrap metal and recycling businesses in Long Marston, Derby, Sheffield, Leeds and Glasgow. Although there is concern about the implementation of some of the regulations, I have not yet found any of the first-hand evidence that he asked me for. However, I saw metal recycling yards where there was no toxic material whatever—no acid from batteries or engine oil from old motor engines.
However, there is concern that local inspections are done at random, in rather a haphazard way, very much influenced by personal choice. It seems that the local environmental health officers would rather avoid the yards where savage dogs are kept and the yard is not concreted over, and where the proprietor is thoroughly offensive. While these are the very people who give the industry a bad name, the local environmental health officer would rather go to a well-run yard where he gets a cup of coffee in a warm office, has a nice chat and then tours a well-run yard while wearing a pair of shoes. He then sometimes makes a lot of fuss about a small oil seepage from an old car.
I stress that the scrap metal and recycling industry does not fear registration or control, but it believes that these should be appropriate and fair. A cloud is appearing on the horizon, and I ask my hon. Friend to comment on it. It is the possibility that future regulation will stipulate that metal recyclers will have to be licensed to handle waste. To obtain a licence, the operator would need a certificate of competence issued by the Institute of Wastes Management. As I have said, the industry agrees that regulation is a good thing and that it must be enforced. The scrap metal industry is as anxious as any other to pursue quality control. Is the Minister satisfied that the Institute of Wastes Management itself is competent to issue a certificate of competence to an industry that it knows nothing about?
Having recognised that the definition of waste is Europeanwide and even a worldwide problem, not merely a domestic one—hence the interest of the BIR—my hon. Friends and I turned our attention to Europe and went to meet Mr. Jean Marie Junger, who is a senior offical in the Euro equivalent of the Department of the Environment. He told us that the European Community would like to help the reclamation and recycling industry and suggested having recourse to three criteria that would exempt valorisable waste or, as I prefer to call it, secondary raw materials, from the procedures that would be applicable to disposable waste.
First, operators and collectors of recyclables should be listed. That means not that they should be registered, licensed or authorised but just that they should be listed. The list could be based on a national federation membership and then widened. Secondly, it was recommended that each country should decide on a single


body which would have authority over the reclamation and recycling industry. That authority would be a different one from the one which deals with disposable waste. In the United Kingdom, I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry should be responsible for the recycling industry and that the Department of the Environment should be responsible for the disposal of waste. Thirdly, the reclamation and recycling industry could be exempted from the administrative consequences of the directive on transfrontier shipments of hazardous waste through the use of various lists of goods, which could be prepared on the basis of Customs and Excise classifications.
10.45 pm
Non-toxic valorisable waste or secondary raw materials would be on a white list, toxic valorisable waste would be on a grey list, whereas disposable waste would have to be on a black list. As a basis for the white list, the Customs and Excise tariff classifications could be used. Products that would be on the white list would be entirely exempt from any control whereas those on the grey list would be subject to a simplified monitoring procedure.
On the basis of that advice, I tabled the amendment, for if we are going anywhere it is into Europe. The amendment is in line with European thinking and has the full backing of the British Scrap Federation and the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I understand also that the British Secondary Metals Association is anxious to identify with it, though I have not had direct dealings with it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully reflect on the amendment, for it is one that has been seriously and painstakingly put together. It would do much to encourage an industry which itself can do much more to help cherish our environment.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I shall speak on two seemingly unconnected matters though they appear in the batch of amendments that we are considering. The first is the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) has just referred—the inclusion of the secondary metal industry within the definition of waste. That means that the industry could be subject to possibly unsuitable and bureaucratic licensing requirements. There are many who believe that, although such requirements may be appropriate to the waste disposal industry, they are not appropriate to a sector that is dedicated to the reclamation and recycling of metal.
The recycling of metal by the secondary metal industry provides the United Kingdom with the equivalent of about £1·5 billion in imports saved or exports made each year. If the metal were not recycled, it would be dumped—some of it is toxic—or consigned for landfill disposal. I submit that both actions are potentially damaging to the environment. The imposition of costly new licensing controls on the metals reclamation industry will threaten the scale of the United Kingdom's current recycling activity at a time when every environmentalist is seeking a dramatic increase in recycling. The industry appears to be committed to the safe disposal of all waste and is prepared to be subject to a stringent code of practice. It is unfortunate that our recycling activities will be caught up in what could be considered to be a web of controls that will probably have no impact on the end disposal of real waste.
Secondly, I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a second question relating to my local borough. My previous statements have been on behalf of the Richmond Metal Company. My next statements will be on behalf of Richmond-upon-Thames council. I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the collection and recycling of waste. He is aware that the council is concerned about what will happen to its effective way of collecting waste. Its method is supported by all parties on the council. I am fairly sure that after tomorrow there will be no change of policy, although I hope that there will be a change in the party in power. The council has led the movement for the recycling of useful waste. Successive Ministers have visited the borough. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs made his debut in ministerial engagements when opening a new waste paper collection plant.
Currently, the borough is both a waste collection agency and a waste disposal agency. It appears that, under the Bill, it will be prevented from buying equipment for baleing and sorting recyclable waste. The council is good at recycling waste. Indeed, the current administration probably creates more waste paper than any other local authority and so needs to recycle it. Under the Bill, it will no longer be allowed to acquire the machinery to recycle that waste.
I am concerned that when the West London waste disposal authority no longer deals with that area of recycling, the council will no longer be able to dispose of its waste. It will have to contract its services to a new authority, thereby wasting what could be the most effective and least expensive way to produce something of value out of disposable waste. I want my hon. Friend to assure me that the new body that will be established under the Bill will be not only the most effective but the least expensive way to recycle beneficial products into society. It would be crazy to close the recycling plant simply for some piece of dogma. I want an assurance that the new body will have a large input from the local authority. If the local authority finds that it is the cheapest body to recycle waste, I hope that there will be no undue costs or bureaucratic constraints imposed upon individuals in the borough.

Mr. Roger Knapman: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Knapman: I sense that my hon. Friends want me to address my remarks to amendment No. 100, which stands in my name. It is an amendment to clause 39, under which harbour authorities and terminal operators must provide reception facilities for waste from ships using their harbours. The waste can take many different forms. It can be residues, mixtures, mixtures including oil, other noxious liquid substances or, of course, vast quantities of garbage.
The potential problem is that, although harbour authorities have the absolute requirement to accept those wastes into their reception facilities, they may not be able to dispose of them from their reception facilities to what one might call their final resting place. If that happened, the harbour authorities would be placed in a difficult position; it may not be putting it too strongly to say that the legislation's intention would be frustrated.
I understand that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 states that ships' waste is industrial waste. The deposit of such waste on land requires a licence, otherwise the deposit


would be prohibited. That prohibition does not generally apply to the deposit of waste from the ship into the reception facility, but it does apply to the disposal of the waste from the reception facility.
Clause 39 specifies the duties of a waste collection authority, but will the Minister consider subsection (2), which says that, although a waste collection authority may arrange for the collection of industrial waste from premises in its area if it is requested to do so by the owner, it is not obliged to do so and must also obtain the consent of the waste disposal authority before exercising that power.
Therefore, a harbour authority or terminal operator who must provide reception facilities for residues might

not be able either to obtain a licence to deposit the waste elsewhere or to persuade the collection authority to collect it, with the consequences that I have already described.
The amendment deals with the problem by inserting a new subsection (1A) which would make it
the duty of each waste collection authority, if requested by a harbour authority or terminal operator, to arrange for the collection of any industrial waste deposited at reception facilities … provided … unless other arrangements for the collection of the waste are made by the waste disposal authority.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that would in no way prejudice the provision of special waste as provided for in the Bill, and I should be grateful if he would give the matter his characteristically detailed consideration.

Mr. Trippier: I was not surprised to see that we have amendments seeking to exempt the scrap industry from waste controls. I would be the first to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who was particularly tenacious in Committee in his defence of the metal scrap industry, and he gave us fair warning that the matter would not be allowed to drop.
We have before us some hard-line and some more reasoned amendments, with which I shall deal briefly.
Amendments Nos. 298 and 299 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) would alter the definition of waste to remove scrap metal from waste management controls altogether. I am not prepared to distort the established definition of waste in that way. Nor can I accept that the treatment of scrap metal is such an environmentally harmless activity that it can be entirely exempt from controls without further ado.
Amendment No. 106 adopts a less absolute stance. The wording of the amendment owes something to proposals being prepared in Brussels to exempt non-hazardous recyclables from the new EC controls on the movement of waste. The European Commission is attempting to define what recyclables are non-hazardous on the basis of tariff classifications, but agreement has not yet been reached. The amendment would achieve the exemption of non-hazardous scrap recycling on the same tariff-based classification.
However, the parallel is misleading. It is one thing to exempt scrap metal, which may be quite safe and inert to transport, from controls on its movement, but it is quite another to exempt the processing of scrap from domestic site licensing controls. The Government support the view that EC controls should not hamper trade in recyclables. Such trade may be needed to make recyclables viable. But that does not constitute a reason for ending controls on scrapyards and metal recycling plants, which can be a source of local environmental problems. There is provision in the Bill for innocuous processes to be exempted from site licensing.
I emphasise that I am most concerned to keep burdens on the scrap industry to a minimum, as long as that is consistent with environmental protection. I would like to see the scrap industry make a case for exemption on those grounds, and I again invite it to do so, but I cannot accept any of the amendments which seek to achieve exemption through primary legislation.
11 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West raised the subject of the Institute of Wastes Management. It will not be issuing certificates of competence. There is a training board—the waste management industry training board—and an advisory board to set up qualifications, chaired by Lord Gregson, who takes the Labour Whip in the House of Lords and for whom I have the highest possible regard. The board is composed of members of industry and local authorities. The scrap industry should be involved in that to ensure that it is competent to decide on qualifications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) referred to the excellent example in his constituency of Richmond borough council in recycling waste. He was concerned that it should not be put at risk by any measures in the Bill. I assure him that that is not the case. The Bill prevents any authority which is both a collection and disposal authority—as Richmond is—from

providing those facilities directly. As a disposal authority, Richmond will have duties under clause 45 to arrange for the recycling and disposal of waste by arrangement with a waste disposal contractor. It does not make any sense for the authority to provide its own facilities as a collection authority, which as a disposal authority it would then have to pass to a contractor.

Mr. Hanley: Is it not true that the local authority could still have a sizeable influence over that contractor if it was deemed to be desirable that that influence existed?

Mr. Trippier: In two ways. First, the local authority would be the regulatory authority. Secondly, in the case of a local authority company—an arm's-length company—as defined by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, 20 per cent. of the board have to be local authority elected representatives or chief officers. If the facility which my hon. Friend has described to the House is as good as lie suggests, I have no doubt that the new National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors will be successful in winning the contract once the bids or tenders are put out.
Finally, I shall reply to amendment No. 100 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). The problem of pollution of coastal waters from ships' refuse needs attention, but placing a duty on local authorities is not necessarily the best way to tackle it. Waste collection authorities already have the power to collect that waste if they are requested to do so. The private sector is only too willing to provide collection and disposal services to port authorities.
I know of no problems where an authority has been unable to find a contractor to take waste, and I am sure that the proposed duty would place an unreasonable burden on the collection authorities to provide specialist collection equipment. I cannot accept that amendment.

Mr. Marland: My hon. Friend has replied in his normal constructive and helpful way. Bearing in mind that the problem is not solved, and I would like to feel that his door would always be open, especially in view of the fact that we have a White Paper coming up in the autumn, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made No. 113, in page 28, line 40, leave out from 'to' to `and' in line 41 and insert
'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;'.

No. 114, in page 28, line 46, leave out from `to' to 'and' in line 48 and insert
'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both;'.

No. 69, in page 29, leave out lines 3 to 14.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 29

DUTY OF CARE ETC. AS RESPECTS WASTE

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 29, line 26, after `person', insert
'or to a person for authorised transport purposes'.

No. 116, in page 29, line 46, at end insert—
`( ) The following are authorised transport purposes for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above—

(a) the transport of controlled waste within the same premises between different places in those premises;
(b) the transport to a place in Great Britain of controlled waste which has been brought from a


country or territory outside Great Britain not having been landed in Great Britain until it arrives at that place; and
(c) the transport by air or sea of controlled waste from a place in Great Britain to a place outside Great Britain;

and "transport" has the same meaning in this subsection as in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989.'.—[Mr. Trippieri.]

Clause 30

WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENCES: GENERAL

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 31, line 3, at end insert
'and any person whose consent would be required shall grant, or join in granting, the holder of the licence such rights in relation to the land as will enable the holder of the licence to comply with any requirements imposed on him by the licence.'.

No. 110, in page 31, line 3, at end insert—
`( ) Conditions may relate, where waste other than controlled waste is to be treated, kept or disposed of, to the treatment, keeping or disposal of that other waste.'.

No. 165, in page 31, line 28, leave out subsection (12).—[ Mr. Trippier]

Clause 31

GRANT OF LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 32, line 8, leave out 'severe' and insert `serious'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 34

SURRENDER OF LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 72, in page 36, line 47, at end insert—
`( ) A person who, for the purposes of an application for the surrender of a licence, makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or both.'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 38

APPEALS TO SECRETARY OF STATE FROM DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 39, line 44, after 'revoked' insert 'under section 33 above'.

No. 176, in page 40, line 4, leave out `in acordance with regulations'.

No. 177, in page 40, line 6, at end insert—
'(2A) Where an appeal is made to the Secretary of State—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer any matter involved in the appeal to a person appointed by him for the purpose;
(b) the Secretary of State may, instead of determining the appeal himself, direct that the appeal or any matter involved in it shall be determined by a person appointed by him for the purpose (who shall have the same powers as the Secretary of State);
(c) if a party to the appeal so requests, or the Secretary of State so decides, the appeal shall be or continue in the form of a hearing (which may, if the person

hearing the appeal so decides, be held or held to any extent in private).'.

No. 178, in page 40, line 7, after 'State', insert
'or other person determining the appeal.'.

No. 167, in page 40, line 22, after 'preventing' insert
`or, where that is not practicable, minimising'.

No. 179, in page 40, line 27, after 'State', insert
'or other person determining the appeal'.

No. 180, in page 40, line 42, at end insert—
'(7) Provision may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations with respect to appeals under this section and in particular—

(a) as to the period within which and the manner in which appeals are to be brought; and
(b) as to the manner in which appeals are to be considered.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 43

WASTE RECYCLING PLANS BY COLLECTION AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 234, in page 47, line 4, at end insert—
'( ) It shall be the duty of a waste collection authority, before finally determining the content of the plan or a modification, to send a copy of it in draft to the Secretary of State for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether subsection (3) above has been complied with; and, if the Secretary of State gives any directions to the authority for securing compliance with that subsection, it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.'.

No. 74, in page 47, line 11, at end insert—
'( ) It shall be the duty of each waste collection authority to keep a copy of the plan and particulars of any modifications to it available at all reasonable times at its principal offices for inspection by members of the public free of charge and to supply a copy of the plan and of the particulars of any modifications to it to any person who requests one, on payment by that person of such reasonable charge as the authority requires.'.—[Mr. Trippier]

Clause 44

WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS OF WASTE REGULATION AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 168, in page 47, line 22, at end insert
`or harm to human health;'.

No. 75, in page 48, line 26, leave out from beginning to second 'the'.

No. 76, in page 49, line 10, leave out from first 'authority' to 'in' in line 11.

No. 111, in page 49, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) It shall be the duty of the authority, before finally determining the content of the plan or modification, to send a copy of it in draft to the Secretary of State for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether subsection (3) above has been complied with; and, if the Secretary of State gives any directions to the authority for securing compliance with that subsection, it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 45

FUNCTIONS OF WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 51, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) Subsection (1) above is subject to section (Transition from Control of Pollution Act 1974 to this Act).'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 52

POWERS TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF WASTE UNLAWFULLY DEPOSITED

Amendments made: No. 169, in page 57, line 33, after `deposited', insert 'in or'.

No. 170, in page 57, line 35, leave out 'the environment' and insert 'land, water or air'.—[Mr. Trippier]

Clause 54

DUTY OF WASTE REGULATION AUTHORITIES AS RESPECTS CLOSED LANDFILLS

Amendments made: No. 142, in page 58, line 43, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 44.

No. 171, in page 59, line 8, after 'in' insert 'or on'.

No. 77, in page 59, line 16, at end insert—
'In this subsection "controlled waste" means household, industrial or commercial waste as defined in section 65(7), (8) and (9) below (subject, if the regulations so provide, to regulations under section 56(1) or 65(10) below).'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 55

SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN DANGEROUS OR INTRACTABLE WASTE

Amendments made: No. 181, in page 60, line 30, leave
out from second 'of' to 'as' in line 31 and insert
`those records, or such information derived from those records,'.

No. 78, in page 60, line 47, at end insert—
'(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland "waste regulation authority" means a district council established under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 57

PUBLIC REGISTERS AND ANNUAL REPORTS

Amendments made: No. 182, in page 61, line 26, at beginning insert
`Subject to sections (Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security) and (Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information)below'.

No. 183, in page 61, line 27, leave out from 'containing' to end of line 45 and insert
`prescribed particulars of or relating to—

( ) current or recently current licences ("licences") granted by the authority;
( ) current or recently current applications to the authority for licences;
( )applications made to the authority under section 32 above for the modification of licences;
( )notices issued by the authority under section 32 above effecting the modification of licences;
( ) notices issued by the authority under section 33 above effecting the revocation or suspension of licences or imposing requirements on the holders of licences;
( ) appeals under section 38 above relating to decisions of the authority;
( ) certificates of completion issued by the authority under section 34(9) above;
( ) notices issued by the authority imposing requirements on the holders of licences under section 37(4) above;
( ) convictions of the holders of licences granted by the authority for any offence under this Part (whether in relation to a licence so granted or not);

( ) the occasions on which the authority has exercised any power under section 37 or 54 above:
( ) directions given to the authority under any provision of this Part by the Secretary of State;'.

No. 184, in page 62, line 1, leave out 'copies or all'.

No. 185, in page 62, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
`( ) such matters relating to the treatment, keeping or disposal of waste in the area of the authority or any pollution of the environment caused thereby as may be prescribed;
and any other document or information required to be kept in the register under any provision of this Act.'.

No. 189, in page 62, line 6, at end insert
'and applications for licences are "recently" current if they relate to a licence which is current or recently current or, in the case of an application which is rejected, for the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which the waste regulation authority gives notice of rejection or, as the case may be, on which the application is deemed by section 31(7) above to have been rejected.'.

No. 188, in page 62, line 6, at end insert—
`(2A) It shall be the duty of each waste collection authority in England which is not a waste regulation authority to maintain a register containing prescribed particulars of such information contained in any register maintained under subsection (1) above as relates to the treatment, keeping or disposal of controlled waste in the area of the authority.
(2B) Waste regulation authorities in England which are not waste collection authorities shall furnish any waste collection authorities in their areas with the particulars necessary to enable them to discharge their duty under subsection (2A) above.'.

No. 187, in page 62, line 7, leave out from beginning to `is' in line 8 and insert
`Each waste regulation authority and waste collection authority shall secure that any register maintained under this section'.

No. 186, in page 62, line 11, leave out 'documents included' and insert 'entries'.

No. 190, in page 62, line 11, at end insert—
`(3A) Registers under this section may be kept in any form.
(3B) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.'.

No. 191, That Clause 57 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (3B) of that Clause and the second consisting of subsection (4) to (7) of that Clause.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 58

FUNCTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND APPOINTMENT ETC. OF INSPECTORS

Amendments made: No. 172, in page 63, line 35, after `environment', insert
'or serious harm to human health'.

No. 173, in page 64, line 15, after 'environment' insert
`or harm to human health'—[Mr. Trippierl

Clause 63

APPEALS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CIVIL LIABILITY

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 68, line 18, after first 'or' insert `knowingly'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 65

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 174, in page 70, leave out lines 13 to 19.

No. 79, in page 70, line 23, leave out from 'from' to end of line 26 and insert—

'(a) domestic property, that is to say, a building or self-contained part of a building which is used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation;
(b) a caravan (as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960) which usually and for the time being is situated on a caravan site (within the meaning of the Act);
(c) a residential home:
(d) premises forming part of a university or school or other educational establishment;
(e) premises forming part of a hospital or nursing home.

No. 80, in page 71, line 3, at end insert—
`( ) "Special waste" means controlled waste as respects which regulations are in force under section 55 above.'.

No. 175 in page 71, line 4, leave out subsection (11).

No. 196 in page 71, line 8, leave out 'subsection' and
insert 'section'.

No. 197 in page 71, line 17, leave out from 'appropriate' to end of line 18.

No. 330, That Clause 65 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (10) of that Clause and the second consisting of subsection (12) of that Clause.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 66

STATUTORY NUISANCES AND INSPECTIONS THEREFORE

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 72, line 7, leave out `or' and insert—
'( ) smoke emitted from a railway locomotive steam engine, or'.

No. 118, in page 72, line 12, leave out `by' and insert `from'.

No. 194, in page 73, line 37, at end insert
'or the Alkali &amp;c. Works Regulation Act 1906 or section 5 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974'.

No. 119, in page 73, line 40, after 'and', insert
'subject to subsection (11) below,'.

No. 120, in page 73, line 46, at end insert—
'(11) A vessel powered by steam reciprocating machinery is not a vessel to which this Part of this Act applies.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 67

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR STATUTORY NUISANCES

Amendment made: No. 199, in page 73, line 47, leave out 'are' and insert 'is'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 70

STATUTORY NUISANCES: SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 300, in page 76, line 44, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'paragraph'.

No. 301, in page 76, line 45, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'paragraphs'.

No. 302, in page 76, line 49, at end insert—
`(5B) Any dust caused by any trade business, manufacture or process, being a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health:'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 73

PRELIMINARY

Amendments made: No. 200, in page 79, line 14 at end insert—

`( ) Land is "Crown land" if it is land—


(a) occupied by Her Majesty as part of the Crown Estate,
(b) occupied by or for the purposes of a government department or for naval, military or air force purposes, or
(c) occupied or managed by any body acting on behalf of the Crown;

is "relevant Crown land" if it is Crown land which is open to the air and is land (but not a highway or in Scotland a public road) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access with or without payment; and "the appropriate Crown authority" for any Crown land is the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Minister in charge of the government department or the body which occupies or manages the land on the Crown's behalf, as the case may be.'.

No. 201, in page 79, line 17, after 'undertaker', insert
'or statutory undertaker of any description".

No. 202, in page 79, line 26, after 'institution', insert
'or educational institution of any description'.

No. 203, in page 79, line 29, after 'treated', insert
'as relevant Crown land or'.

No. 204, in page 79, leave out lines 41 and 42.

No. 205, in page 80, line 7, at beginning insert
except where he is the highway or roads authority)'.

No. 206, in page 80, line 11, at end insert—
'and where, by an order under this subsection, responsibility for the discharge of those duties is transferred, the authority to which the transfer is made is, for the purposes of this Part, "responsible" for the highway, road or part specified in the order.'—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 74

OFFENCE OF LEAVING LITTER

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 80, line 35, leave out second 'or' and insert
`, any trunk road which is a special road and any'.

No. 207, in page 80, line 38, at end insert—
`( ) any place on relevant Crown land which is not a free public open place;'.-[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 75

FIXED PENALTY NOTICES FOR LEAVING LITTER

Amendments made: No. 208, in page 81, line 9, leave out from 'a' to 'finds' in line 11 and insert 'litter authority'.

No. 209, in page 81, line 39, leave out 'principal'.

No. 210, in page 82, line 4, leave out 'principal'.

No. 211, page 82, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section the following are "litter authorities"—

(a) any principal litter authority, other than a county council, a regional council or a joint board;
(b) any county council, regional council or joint board designated by the Secretary of State, by order, in relation to such area as is specified in the order (not being an area in a National Park);
(c) any National Park Committee;
(d) any Park board for any area in a National Park; and
(e) the Broads Authority'.

No. 212, in page 82, line 10, leave out 'a principal litter' and insert
or in the case of any Park board or National Park Committee, an officer acting on behalf of, a litter'.

No. 213, in page 82, line 13, leave out from 'officer' to end of line 14 and insert
in relation to a litter authority, means the person having responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority';'.

No. 214, in page 82, line 14, at end insert—
' "National Park Committee" means a committee appointed to perform functions under paragraph 5 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972;
Park board", in relation to a National Park, means—


(a) a joint planning board reconstituted under paragraph 1 of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972; or
(b) a board reconstituted as a special planning board under paragraph 3 of that Schedule;'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 76

DUTY TO KEEP LAND AND HIGHWAYS CLEAR OF LITTER ETC

Amendments made: No. 215, in page 82, line 20, at end insert—
`( ) the Secretary of State, as respects any trunk road which is a special road and any relevant highway or relevant road for which he is responsible,'.

No. 216, in page 82, line 21, at end insert—
`( ) the appropriate Crown authority, as respects its relevant Crown land,'.—[Mr. Trippier]

Mr. Pike: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 82, line 30, after 'practicable', insert 'within the resources available'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 139, in page 82, line 31, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each financial year satisfy himself that the resources available to each local authority or other body to which this section applies are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of the functions conferred by subsection (1) above.'.
No. 145, in page 83, line 34, after 'prepared', insert 'or modified'.

Mr. Pike: Amendment No. 145 is a minor one, which makes a small improvement to the Bill. Although it is likely that the Minister will respond negatively to amendments Nos. 138 and 139, I hope that he will respond positively to that one.
Clause 76 deals with the duty of local authorities to keep highways and land free of litter. Amendment No. 138 provides that, where that is practicable, it should be carried out "within the resources available". This is the last option that we would want the Government to accept, because I believe that amendment No. 139 contains a better proposal. We tabled amendment No. 138 because we recognise that the Government are loth to make funds available to local government. If they are not prepared to meet the requirements in amendment No. 139, they should tackle the problem in the best possible way "within the resources available". That is an important distinction, going beyond the practicability referred to in clause 76.
We have seen the Government's proposals and seen how they categorise different types of streets, highways and land covered by the clause. We know about the powers they are giving the public to take action against local authorities. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, always take a close interest in your local authority, Sandwell, and that you recognise the problems that the council will have in meeting the requirements of this part of the Bill. We all want litter to be eliminated.
The Government are all too fond of giving responsibilities and duties to local authorities without giving them the resources to carry them out. Councils were given the duty of calculating housing benefit after that duty was transferred from the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was. Every local authority would claim that it has a net deficit because of that burden. The

Government have a duty to ensure that local authorities have the cash resources available to carry out their responsibilities.

Mr. Trippier: We cannot have this. I must have told the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) a hundred times in Committee that we will provide additional resources through the revenue support grant, as soon as we have ascertained from the consultants' study how much money will be required to provide for that new facility. It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman makes it sound. A number of local authorities manage to do the job perfectly well within their existing resources. We are sitting in the middle of one—the City of Westminster. There is also Canterbury and, to name one that is not controlled by the Conservatives, the London borough of Sutton. It is under Liberal control, but it somehow manages miraculously to work well within its existing resources and keep the streets remarkably clean.
With the new duties imposed by this legislation, may right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said many times that we are certainly prepared to consider providing additional resources as soon as the consultants' study is completed, which I hope will be within the next few months. We hope then to announce the formula that will be used for calculating those additional resources.

Mr. Pike: We have heard the same message from the Minister time after time. We judge the Government by their track record. They have failed to deliver in the past. We believe that they will again fail to do so. No doubt they will make additional resources available but they will not be sufficient. That is why we thought amendment No. 139 was essential to safeguard the position.
With the permission of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 217, in page 82, line 32. after `of, insert `(a)'.

No. 218, in page 82, line 34, after 'responsible', insert
`and, (b) the Secretary of State, as respects any trunk road which is a special road and any relevant highway or relevant road for which he is responsible,'.

No. 219, in page 83, line 31, leave out `authority' and insert 'person'.—(Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 78

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BY PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY LITTER

Amendment made: No. 220, in page 84, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) any trunk road which is a special road;'.

No. 221, in page 84, line 33, at end insert—
`( ) any relevant Crown land;'.

No. 222, in page 84, line 39, at end insert—
`( ) A principal litter authority shall not be treated as a person aggrieved for the purposes of proceedings under this section.'.

No. 236, in page 84, line 41, leave out 'authority, institution or'.

No. 237, in page 84, line 45, leave out 'authority, institution or'.

No. 238, in page 84, line 46, leave out 'authority, institutionr'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 79

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS BY LITTER AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 223, in page 86, line 3, at beginning insert—
'( ) any relevant Crown land,'.

No. 224, in page 86, line 17, at beginning insert—
'( ) as respects relevant Crown land, on the appropriate Crown authority;'.

No. 225, in page 87, line 8, after 'to', insert 'relevant Crown land or'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 82

DEFINITIONS

Amendment made: No. 226, in page 90, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) "Highway"(and "highway maintainable at the public expense"), "special road" and "trunk road", in relation to England and Wales, have the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 and "public road", "special road" and "trunk road", in relation to Scotland, have the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 83

APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR ENGLAND AND WALES AND FOR SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 90, line 40, leave out from 'Act' to 'the' in line 41.

No 2, in page 90, line 42, leave out from 'inspector' to end of line 45.

No. 3, in page 91, line 13, leave out '9 and 14(3)' and insert 'and 9'.

No. 4, in page 91 line 18, leave out '16'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 85

ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF CHIEF INSPECTOR

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 93, line 18, after 'one', insert
'or subsection (5) of section three'.

No. 6, in page 94, line 18, after 'one', insert
'or subsection (5) of section three'.

No. 7, in page 94, line 29, after 'any', insert 'public or'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 89

PURPOSE OF PART VI AND MEANING OF "GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS

Amendments made: No. 268, in page 96, line 19, leave out 'comprising' and insert 'consisting of'.

No. 269, in page 97, line 8, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections (4) and'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 90

MEANING OF "DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT", "CONTROL" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS IN PART VI

Amendments made: No. 270, in page 97, line 19, leave out from 'water' to end of line 20 and insert
`or any of those media'.

No. 271, in page 97, line 22, after 'have', insert
'(or of a single such organism which has)'.

No. 272, in page 97, line 23, leave out 'human' and insert 'a person's'.

No. 273, in page 97, line 24, leave out from first 'are' to 'capable' in line 27 and insert '(or is)'.

No. 274, in page 97, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(3A) An organism shall be regarded as present in the environment notwithstanding that it is present in or on any human or other organism, or any article or other substance, which is itself present in the environment.
(3B) Genetically modified organisms present in the environment are capable of causing harm if—

(a) they are individually capable, or are present in numbers such that together they are capable, of causing harm; or
(b) they are able to produce descendants which will be capable, or which will be present in numbers such that together they will be capable, of causing harm;

and a single organism is capable of causing harm either if it is itself capable of causing harm or if it is able to produce descendants which will be so capable.
(4) "Harm" means harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, means offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property.
(4A) "Harmful" and "harmless" mean respectively, in relation to genetically modified organisms, their being capable or their being incapable of causing harm.
(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide, in relation to genetically modified organisms of any description specified in the regulations, that—

(a) the capacity of those organisms for causing harm of any description so specified, or
(b) harm of any description so specified,

shall be disregarded for such purposes of this Part as may be so specified.'.

No. 275, in page 97, line 35, leave out from 'under' to 'keeps' in line 36 and insert
'the "control" of a person where he'.

No. 276, in page 97, line 37, leave out from 'for' to end of line 40 and insert
'either or both of the following purposes, namely—

(a) for ensuring that the organisms do not enter the environment or produce descendants which are not so contained; or
(b) for ensuring that the organisms which do not enter the environment, or any descendants of the organisms which are not so contained, are harmless.'.

No. 267, in page 97, line 45, at end insert—
'( ) Genetically modified organisms of any description are "marketed" when products consisting of or including such organisms are placed on the market.'.—[Mr. Trippier]

Clause 91

RISK ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Amendment made: No. 244, page 98, line 3, leave out clause 91.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 92

REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO PERSONAL IMPORTS

Amendment made: No. 256, in page 99, line 5, leave out clause 92.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 93

CONSENTS REQUIRED BY CERTAIN PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 262, in page 100, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'any' and insert 'or acquire, release or market.—[Mr. Trippier.]

No. 277, in page 100, line 5, leave out 'received a direction' and insert `been given directions'.

No. 245, in page 100, leave out line 6 and insert
'(risk assessment and notification requirements) (8)(a) above'.

No. 263, in page 100, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) Subject to subsection (6) below, no person who has imported or acquired any genetically modified organisms (whether under a consent or not) shall continue to keep the organisms—

(a) in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed, after the end of the prescribed period, or
(b) if he has been given directions under section (risk assessment and notification requirements) (8)(b) above, after the date specified in the directions,

except in pursuance of a consent granted by the Secretary of State and in accordance with any limitations or conditions to which the consent is subject.'.

No. 291, in page 100, line 9, at end insert—
`(1B) A person who is required under subsection (1A) above to cease keeping any genetically modified organisms shall dispose of them as quickly and safely as practicable'.

No. 264, in page 100, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

No. 265, in page 100, line 28, leave out from beginning to `above' and insert
`any requirement under subsection (1) or (1A)'.

No. 289, in page 100, line 34, leave out from 'consent' to 'or' in line 35 and insert
'subject to such limitations and conditions as may be imposed under section (consents: limitations and conditions) below'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 95

DUTIES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION, KEEPING OR RELEASE OF ORGANISMS IN THE COURSE OF AN UNDERTAKING

Amendment made: No. 254, in page 101, line 22, leave out Clause 95.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 97

RIGHTS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION

Amendments made: No. 278, in page 103, line 30, leave out from 'be' to 'genetically' in line 31 and insert
`a genetically modified organism or to consist of or include'.

No. 279, in page 104, line 13, leave out from 'above' to `he'.

No. 280, in page 104, line 17, leave out from 'above' to `an' in line 18.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 98

OBTAINING OF INFORMATION FROM PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 290, in page 105, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
'(a)) to be involved in the importation, acquisition, keeping, release or marketing of genetically modified organisms; or
(b) to be about to become, or to have been, involved in any of those activities;'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 99

PROHIBIlION NOTICES

Amendment made: No. 257, in page 105, line 16, leave out clause 99.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 100

POWER TO DEAL WITH CAUSE OF IMMINENT DANGER OF DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Amendments made: No. 281, in page 105, line 36, leave out `anything' and insert 'any thing or substance'.

No. 282, in page 105, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'and' and insert
`a genetically modified organism or that it consists of or includes genetically modified organisms'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 101

OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 246, in page 106, line 14, leave out '91(1) above to or' and insert
'(risk assessment and notification requirements) (1) above'.

No. 247, in page 106, line 16, at end insert—
`(aa) to fail to comply with section '(risk assessment and notification requirements) (3) above when keeping something which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, a genetically modified organism;'.

No. 258, in page 106, leave out lines 17 to 23.

No. 266, in page 106, line 24, leave out 'above to. or' and insert 'or (1A) above.'.

No. 255, in page 106, line 27, leave out from first 'or to `above' in line 28 and insert
`subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section (general duties relating to importation or acquisition, keeping, marketing or release of organisms)'.

No. 248, in page 106, line 30, at end insert—
`(aa) to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section '(risk assessment and notification requirements)' (5) or (6) above'.

No. 249, in page 107, line 7, leave out '91' and insert
'(risk assessment and notification requirements)'.

No. 250, in page 107, line 14, after '(a)', insert '(aa)'.

No. 259, in page 107, line 14, leave out `(b), (c)'.

No. 260, in page 107, line 23, leave out `(b), (c) or'.

No. 251, in page 107, line 29, after '(a)', insert 'or (aa)'.

No. 252, in page 107, line 36, after 'paragraph', insert '(ee)'.

No. 253, in page 108, line 4, leave out '(a)' and insert '(aa)'.—[Mr.Trippier.]

Clause 103

DEFINITIONS

Amendments made: No. 283, in page 108, line 26, leave out 'the acquisition of.

No. 284, in page 108, line 27, leave out `by any person'.

No. 285, in page 108, line 28, leave out 'his' and insert `a person's'.

No. 286, in page 108, line 32, after 'conditions' insert `subject'.

No. 287, in page 108, line 32, leave out from 'which' to `has' in line 33 and insert
`the consent for the time being'.

No. 261, in page 108, line 40, leave out '99' and insert `(Prohibition notices)'.

No. 295, in page 108, leave out lines 41 to 45.

No. 288, in page 108, line 45, at end insert—
'(2) This Part, except in so far as it relates to importations of genetically modified organisms, applies to the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain, and to any area for the time being designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, as it applies in Great Britain.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 117

POWER TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF WASTE

Amendments made: No. 192, in page 116, line 29, at end insert—
`(dd) provide for the keeping by the Secretary of State, waste regulation authorities and waste collection authorities of public registers of information relating to the importation and exportation of waste and for the transmission of such information between any of those powers;'.

No. 193, in page 116, line 41, after `"waste"', insert `,
waste collection authority",'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 118

POWERS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 118, line 7, at end insert:—
`(5) Regulations under this section shall, in relation to any requirement to be imposed under subsection (e) above where there is more than one person who manufactures the substance in or imports it into the United Kingdom, make provision for allocating the responsibility for providing test data on an equitable basis.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 228, 227 and 231.
Amendment No. 318, in clause 133, in page 125, line 10, at end insert—
`(2) The following provision of the Act shall come into force on the day on which it is passed, namely—
section 128 (application to Crown).'.
Government amendments Nos. 232, 229, 230, 296, 297 and 233.

Mr. Bennett: I want the Minister to concentrate on amendment No. 318, which deals with the commencement day for the provision on the removal of Crown immunity. I want from the Minister an assurance about how quickly he will bring hospitals under the control of the legislation. The Minister is well aware that on several occasions I have raised the problem of the disposal of clinical waste in the greater Manchester area and the problems which the greater Manchester waste disposal authority has in getting a plant suitable to deal with it.
The Minister will be aware that from 1 April the disposal authority stopped taking hospital waste and left it to the hospitals to dispose of it themselves through private contractors or by putting it into their own incinerators. He will also be aware that several hospital incinerators in greater Manchester are out of date and do not reach the standards which will be required when Crown immunity has been removed.
Many of those incinerators are old but sadly the incinerator at Manchester Royal infirmary, which is relatively new, will not meet the standards. That incinerator is used to dispose of large quantities of hospital waste and is pumping out noxious materials over the people in the surrounding area. It is ironic that a hospital, which is supposedly there to improve people's health, is causing problems by the pollution which is coming from its incinerator.
I hope the Minister will tell us that Crown immunity will be removed as soon as the legislation receives Royal Assent and that the Government will not delay the

removal of Crown immunity, thus allowing plants like that at Manchester Royal infirmary to go on polluting the surrounding area. I will listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
Because of our desire to finish at a reasonable time, I did not get a chance to speak on amendment No. 317. If I send the Minister a note about it, I hope that he will try to produce an answer before the matter reaches the House of Lords. The amendment deals with the removal from footpaths of obstructions which the Ramblers Association regards as nuisances.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The reason I cannot accept the amendment, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that there is normally at least a two-month period before provisions are brought into effect. If we accepted the amendment, we would have the rather odd position of part of the Bill being brought into effect with nothing to which to apply it. I ask him to accept that two months is the minimum provision for bringing the clauses into effect. It is our aim that that should apply in this case.

Mr. Bennett: May I have an assurance that Crown immunity will be removed two months after the legislation comes into effect?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes; it is our firm intention to bring that provision into effect within two months of Royal Assent.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 121

BURNING OF STRAW AND STUBBLE ETC.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 309, in page 120, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 310, in page 120, line 21, leave out 'in all, or'.
No. 311, in page 120, line 22, leave out 'in all, or'.
No. 312, inpage 120, line 23, leave out 'in all, or'. 
No. 313, in page 120, line 23, at end insert
`where disposal of crop residues through incorporation, baling, briquetting or composting is not a practical option.'.

Mr. Beith: This is only one of a group of amendments that are designed to strengthen the Government's resolve. Hon. Members will see that they deal with the various options for exempting the ban on straw and stubble burning.
I warmly welcome the Government's decision to include the ban in the Bill. The amendments try to ensure that it really is a ban and that the provision for exemptions does not make it inoperative. I speak with feeling, because a large part of my constituency is on fire, although not in this case because of stubble burning. It may have been started by operations conducted by the Forestry Commission. Such fires spread extremely dangerously. Hon. Members who think that it is funny should go out now with the full-time and part-time fire brigades who have been out night after night for the past month trying to put out serious forest fires. Fires cause enormous damage.
There has been a fair amount of straw burning in the past that has not given rise to dangerous fires, but some of it clearly has. One of the most compelling reasons for the


ban is the fact that any such uncontrolled fires are dangerous. They will be especially dangerous this year. We have had a dry winter and the summer has started dry. We face a serious danger.
A decade ago, serious fires in the north of Scotland ravaged forestry crops there. The same is likely to happen in Northumberland this year if the utmost care is not taken—and not only by the public, who always get the blame. Fires always supposed to have been started by a member of the public discarding a match or cigarette end, but fires started in the course of agricultural or forestry operations often spread.
Last summer, we had fires that caused serious danger to road traffic. There was a fire that caused serious smoke over the A1 not far south of Berwick for a long time. It is extremely dangerous if smoke billows across a busy road, often unexpectedly because of a change in wind direction. There is nuisance and danger; there is also enormous damage to animal and plant life, as anyone who visits areas ravaged by fires can see.
Above all, it is wasteful to destroy straw. Enterprising farmers in my constituency have taken straw to west coast farms for some years now. Usually, they can get a reasonable price for it, or at least a price that pays for the cost of transport. In some years, that has not been possible, and the National Fanners Union has organised the transhipment of straw from the east to the west coast, to the general benefit.
It is in the interests of all those farmers who have tried to abide by and operate the voluntary codes that we adopt something strict enough to deal with the handful of people who still cause problems, danger and waste. We have felt it necessary to table the amendments because we fear that exemptions might be sufficiently numerous to make it impossible for the public to know whether straw or stubble burning is taking place within the law.
I think that the Government's intention—it was certainly our belief—was that it should be quite clear that, as of this Bill coming into force, stubble and straw burning was banned. Exemptions must be so rare as not to cast doubt on a general understanding by farmers, farm workers and the public that people cannot burn straw and stubble. That understanding would be fatally undermined if there were so many exemptions, for which there is not usually strong justification, that there did not appear to be a general ban. One of our amendments indicates the numerous other things which can be done in order to make good use of straw and stubble. Stubble itself, for instance, can be ploughed back into the land.
I therefore ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government intend to see this through and ensure that there is a general ban on straw and stubble burning and that they do not envisage widespread exemptions. If there are widespread exemptions, some farmers will say that the ban is not serious and will feel that they can do a bit of straw burning and check up later to see whether they would have been exempted; and the public will not have the confidence to report any incident which poses a danger to them or a threat to wildlife and which is a wasteful use of products which can be recycled.

Mr. Morley: I rise very briefly, because we have gone through some of these points in Committee and there is no point in going over them all again. The Minister in Committee gave certain assurances about the exemptions that would be made available. Legitimate concern has

been expressed by various organisations about what those exemptions will be, and it might help if a code of guidance was published so that we could see the exact thinking of the Government on what exemptions will be allowed.
Just for the benefit of hon. Members who are present, I might remind the House, to show the scale of the problem, that in 1988 there were 160 complaints about smoke and soot nuisance to local councils, a figure which went up in 1989 to 1,635 complaints.
I would also appreciate a comment from the Minister about the treatment of agricultural premises as trade premises for the burning of other wastes. Just recently, as I have travelled round the country, I have noticed large plumes of smoke coming from various farms where presumably people have been burning to dispose of such things as plastic bags, old tyres used on silage clamps and so on. I would be grateful for some clarification on whether the burning of such waste comes under the control of this Bill as it applies to trade premises and smoke pollution control.

Mr. Trippier: I very much welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I am most grateful to him for supporting the clause I, like him, do not wish to see widespread exemptions. Nor do the Minister of Agriculture or the junior Minister who served on the Standing Committee—I must apologise to the House that he cannot be present at this juncture, owing to the very sad and untimely death of his mother, which has meant his leaving the House today.
I can tell the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the exemptions will certainly be limited. It may well be a good idea to come forward with some clearer idea as to what they could be. From memory, my hon. Friend in Committee mentioned two possible exemptions: the burning of linseed in all areas and in certain circumstances and the burning of crop residues in the context of an approved agricultural training board course, even where alternative forms of disposal for that residue exist.
However, if we carry on cataloguing the number of exemptions, we fall into the trap which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seeks to avoid, and I agree with him that we should not do that. I will certainly ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to respond to the precise point that he has made, so that it can be clearly seen what exemptions he will consider. I hope that there will not be very many. The signal that must go out from this short debate is that we intend to stop straw and stubble burning. The move has been widely welcomed. The NFU's support of the Government's proposals shows that it appreciates that this change in the legislation is one whose time has come.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I am a bit anxious about the idea that we need to train more people on courses to carry out straw burning. In the past I might have welcomed it, because it is a job which, if it is done at all, needs to be done with a great deal of skill and care and only when the wind direction can be predicted safely; but I hope that we will not need to train people to do this at all in the future, so courses will not need to be included.
I was also a bit concerned about what was perhaps a slip of the tongue by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). We are past talking about codes


of practice now. The Minister will make regulations that will be strictly limited. The fact that the code of practice proved not to be enough led us to legislate on the matter, with the support of those in the farming industry who tried to make the code work. Clearly, we needed something stronger, and the Government have given us that. The Minister has also given us the assurance that I sought, that this is intended to be a general ban and that the exemptions that he mentioned are restricted. Once the legislation and the regulations have been passed, the public will know that straw and stubble burning is banned and so will farmers. That will be a good thing for everyone.

Amendment negatived.

>Clause 122

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES

Amendment made: No. 228, in page 121, line 29, leave out 'the United Kingdom' and insert 'Great Britain'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 128

APPLICATION TO CROWN

Amendment made: No. 227, in page 123, line 34, at end insert—
'(7) For the purposes of this section in its application to Part II and Part IV the authority charged with enforcing the provisions of those Parts in its area is—

(a) in the case of Part II, any waste regulation authority, and
(b) in the case of Part IV, any principal litter authority.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 131

CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 231, in page 124, line 46, at end insert—
'(4) Any regulations made under section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall have effect after the repeal of that section by subsection (2) above as if made under section 116 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Clause 133

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 232, in page 125, line 30, at end insert
`and, in Part VIII, the repeal of section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.'.

No. 229, in page 125, line 36, at end insert
`section 55(2)(e) in so far as it relates to importation;'.

No. 230, in page 126, line 3, at end insert
`section 127 in so far as it relates to Part VI and sections 116, 117 and 118 so far as they extend to Northern Ireland;'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

ABANDONED SHOPPING AND LUGGAGE TROLLEYS

Application

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, this Schedule applies where any shopping or luggage trolley is found by an authorised officer of the local authority on any land in the open air and appears to him to be abandoned.

(2) This Schedule does not apply in relation to a shopping or luggage trolley found on the following descriptions of land, that is to say—

(a) land in which the owner of the trolley has a legal estate;

(b) where an off-street parking place affords facilities to the customers of shops for leaving their shopping trolleys used by them, land on which those facilities are afforded;
(c) where any other place designated by the local authority for the purposes of this Schedule affords like facilities, land on which those facilities are afforded; and
(d) as respects luggage trolleys, land which is used for the purposes of their undertaking by persons authorised by an enactment to carry on any railway, light railway, tramway or road transport undertaking or by a relevant airport operator (within the meaning of Part V of the Airports Act 1986).

Power to seize and remove trolleys

2.—(1) Where this Schedule applies in relation to a shopping or luggage trolley, the local authority may, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,—

(a) seize the trolley; and
(b) remove it to such place under its control as the authority thinks fit.

(2) When a shopping or luggage trolley is found on any land appearing to the authorised officer to be occupied by any person, the trolley shall not be removed without the consent of that person unless—

(a) the local authority has served on that person a notice stating that the authority proposes to remove the trolley; and
(b) no notice objecting to its removal is served by that person on the local authority within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the local authority served the notice of the proposed removal on him.

Retention, return and disposal of trolleys

3.—(1) Subject to the following sub-paragraphs, the local authority, as respects any shopping or luggage trolley it has seized and removed,—

(a) shall keep the trolley for a period of six weeks; and
(b) may sell or otherwise dispose of the trolley at any time after the end of that period.

(2) The local authority shall, as respects any trolley it has seized or removed, as soon as reasonably practicable (but not later than fourteen days) after its removal, serve on the person (if any) who appears to the authority to be the owner of the trolley a notice stating—

(a) that the authority has removed the trolley and is keeping it;
(b) the place where it is being kept; and
(c) that, if it is not claimed, the authority may dispose of it.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, if, within the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, any person claims to be the owner of a shopping or luggage trolley being kept by the authority under that sub-paragraph, the local authority shall, if it appears that the claimant is the owner, deliver the trolley to him.

(4) A person claiming to be the owner of a shopping or luggage trolley shall not be entitled to have the trolley delivered to him unless he pays the local authority, on demand, such charge as the authority requires.

(5) No shopping or luggage trolley shall be disposed of by the local authority unless (where it has not been claimed) the authority has made reasonable enquiries to ascertain who owns it.

Charges

4.—(1) the local authority, in fixing the charge to be paid under paragraph 3 above by the claimant of a shopping or luggage trolley, shall secure that the charges so payable by claimants shall be such as are sufficient, taking one financial year with another, to cover the cost of removing, storing and disposing of such trolleys under this Schedule.

(2) The local authority may agree with persons who own shopping or luggage trolleys and make them available for use in its area a scheme for the collection by them of trolleys they make available for use; and where such an agreement is in force with any person, no charge may be demanded under paragraph 3 above by the local authority in respect of any trolley within the scheme in relation to which the provisions of the scheme are complied with.

Definitions

5. In this Schedule—
luggage trolley" means a trolley provided by a person carrying on an undertaking mentioned in paragraph 1(2)(d) above to travellers for use by them by carrying their luggage to, from or within the premises used for the purposes of his undertaking, not being a trolley which is power-assisted; and
shopping trolley", means a trolley provided by the owner of a shop to customers for use by them for carrying goods purchased at the shop, not being a trolley which is power-assisted.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added tothe Bill.

Schedule 1

AUTHORISATIONS FOR PROCESSES; SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 127, line 6, leave out `and advertised'.

No. 82, in page 127, line 7, at end insert—
( ) An application to the enforcing authority for an authorisation must also, unless regulations made by the Secretary of State exempt applications of that class, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations so made.'.

No. 83, in page 127, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
'(4) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different classes of applications'.

No. 84, in page 127, line 18, at beginning insert
`Subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,'.

No. 85, in page 127, line 21, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State may. by regulations, exempt any class of application from the requirements of this paragraph'.

No. 86, in page 128, line 35, leave out `(2) and'.

No. 87, in page 128, leave out lines 40 to 44.

No. 62, in page 128, line 47, after 'shall' insert
'If the applicant notifies the authority in writing that he treats the failure as such'.

No. 88, in page 128, line 50, at end insert
`and different periods may be substituted for different classes of application'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Schedule 2

WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES

Amendments made:No. 95, in page 132, line 41, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'the transfer scheme'.

No. 122, in page 132, line 42, at end insert—

'Benefit of certain planning permission

.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to planning permission deemed to have been granted to the authority under regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1976 (deemed planning permission for development by local authorities) which subsists at the vesting date.

(2) Any planning permission to which this paragraph applies which authorises the use of land by the authority for the treatment or disposal of waste shall, on the transfer of the land to the company by the scheme, enure for the benefit of the land.'.

No. 96, in page 135, leave out lines 3 to 16.

No. 97, in page 135, line 17, at end insert—

'16A. A waste disposal authority shall, in determining the terms and conditions of any contract which the authority proposes to enter into for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, so frame the terms and conditions as to avoid undue discrimination in favour of one description of waste disposal contractor as against other descriptions of waste disposal contractors.'.

No. 98, in page 135, line 19, leave out from 'contract' to 'of' in line 20 and insert
`which the authority proposes to enter into for the keeping, treatment or disposal'.

No. 99, in page 135, line 31, at end insert—

'Procedure for putting waste disposal contracts out to tender

17A.—(1) A waste disposal authority which proposes to enter into a contract for the keeping, treatment or disposal of controlled waste shall comply with the following requirements before making the contract and if it does not any contact which is made shall be void.

(2) The authority shall publish, in at least two publications circulating among waste disposal contractors, a notice containing—

(a) a brief description of the contract work;
(b) a statement that during a specified period any person may inspect a detailed specification of the contract work free of charge at a specified place and time;
(c) a statement that during that period any person will be supplied with a copy of the detailed specification on request and on payment of the specified charge;
(d) a statement that any person who wishes to submit a tender for the contract must notify the authority of his wish within a specified period; and
(e) a statement that the authority intend to invite tenders for the contract, in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) below.

(3) The authority shall—

(a) ensure that the periods, place and time and the charge specified in the notice are such as are reasonable;
(b) make the detailed specification available for inspection in accordance with the notice; and
(c) make copies of the detailed specification available for supply in accordance with the notice.

(4) If any persons notified the authority, in accordance with the notice, of their wish to submit tenders for the contract, the authority shall—

(a) if more than four persons did so, invite at least four of them to tender for the contract;
(b) if less than four persons did so, invite each of them to tender for the contract.

(5) In this paragraph—
the contract work", in relation to a contract for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, means the work comprising the services involved in the keeping, treatment or disposal of the waste under the contract; and
specified" means specified in the notice under sub-paragraph (2) above.

17B. A waste disposal authority, in taking any of the following decisions, namely—

(a) who to invite to tender for the contract under paragraph I 7A(4)(a) above, and
(b) who to enter into the contract with,

shall disregard the fact that any waste disposal contractor tendering for the contract is, or is not, controlled by the authority.

Variation of waste disposal contracts

17C. Where a waste disposal authority has entered into a contract with a waste disposal contractor under the authority's control, paragraph 16A above shall, with the necessary modifications, apply on any proposed variation of the contract during the subsistence of that control, in relation to the terms and conditions that would result from the variation as it applies to the original contract.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Schedule 4

FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF THE RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1960

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 138, line 39, leave out from second 'inspector' to end of line 40.

No. 9, in page 140, line 10, leave out `(4)' and insert `(5)'.

No. 10, in page 140, line 37, at end insert—
'(d) in subsection (6), for the words "the last preceding subsection" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (5) of this section".'.

No. 11, in page 142, line 33, leave out 'for England and Wales'.

No. 12, in page 142, line 39, at end insert
`or
(d) revoke such an authorisation.'.

No. 13, in page 143, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) An appeal under this section shall, if and to the extent required by regulations under subsection (10) of this section, be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed.'.

No. 14, in page 144, line 23, leave out 'the procedure for'.

No. 15, in page 144, line 40, after 'whom', insert 'he has served'.

No. 16, in page 144, line 41, leave out 'is served'.

No. 17, in page 148, line 3 after 'inspectori, insert '(a)'.

No. 18, in page 148, line 4 leave out 'and' and insert—
`(b) for the words "the last preceding section" there shall be substituted the words "section twelve of this Act"; and
(c) '.

No. 19, in page 148, line 16, at end insert—
'(10) After subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(9) Where the commission by any person of an offence under this section is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings for the offence are taken against the first-mentioned person.'''.

No. 20, in page 149, line 4, at end insert—

'Expenses and receipts

In section 16 of the 1960 Act (expenses and receipts)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words following "incurred by" there shall be substituted the words "the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under this Act"; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the word "Minister" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".'.

No. 21, in page 149, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
'(a) for any reference to the chief inspector there shall be substituted a reference to the chief inspector for Scotland, being the inspector so appointed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act in relation to Scotland;
(b) any reference to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall be omitted and anything required to be done in England by both the chief inspector and that Minister shall be done in Scotland by the chief inspector for Scotland;'.

No. 22, in page 149, line 37, leave out from `(k)' to 'in' line 42.

No. 23, in page 150, leave out lines 4 to 7—[Mr. Trippier]

Schedule 11

AMENDMENTS OF THE PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION ACT 1971

Amendments made: No. 303, in page 176, line 23, at end insert—
'(ia) when, in the absence of a warrant or citation, the master or owner is first brought before a court competent to deal with the case;
(ib) when, in a case where he is liberated upon a written undertaking in terms of section 18(2)(a) or 295(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, the master or owner appears at the specified court at the specified time;
(ic) when, in a case mentioned in paragraph (ib) above, the master or owner fails to appear at the specified court at the specified time, the court grants warrant for his apprehension;'.

No. 304, in page 176, line 26, leave out from '1975' to `; and ' in line 27.

No. 305, in page 176, line 34, after 'abandoned', insert '(other than pro loco et tempore)'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Schedule 12

CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 180, line 46, after `or', insert 'the'.

No. 90, in page 181, line 42, at end insert—

`Functions assignable to London port health authority

In section 7(4) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (enactments functions under which are assignable to London port health authority), after the paragraph (k) inserted by paragraph 23 of Schedule 6 to the Building Act 1984, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(1) Part I and Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;".'.

No. 296, in page 182, line 18, at end insert—

'Meaning of household waste: competition

. In Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1988 (competition: collection of household waste), paragraph 1 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), the words "In the application of this Part to England and Wales," shall be omitted;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for the words "section 12 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974" there shall be substituted the words "section 39 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990";
(c) in sub-paragraph (3), for the words "section 30(4) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974" there shall be substituted the words "section 65(10) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990"; and
(d) sub-paragraph (4) shall be omitted.'.

No. 123, in page 182, line 46, at beginning insert '1(4)(a),'.

No. 124, in page 182, line 47, after '5(1)', insert 'and (4)(a)'.

No. 125, in page 183, line 8, after '(3)', insert (4)'.—[ Mr. Trippier.]

Schedule 13

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 184, line 25, leave out 'the work' and insert `so'.

No. 195, in page 184, line 43, at end insert—

'1990 c.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
 In section 66(9), the words following "Part I".'.

No. 297, in page 185, line 8, at end insert—

'1988 c. 9.
Local Government Act 1988.
In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1, in sub-paragraph (1) the words "In the application of this Part to England and Wales," and sub-paragraph (4).'.

No. 121, in page 186, line 27, column 3, after '22', insert `(1) and (2)'.

No. 233, in page 187, line 37, at end insert—

'1974 c. 40.
Control of Pollution Act 1974
Section 100.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 315, in line 13, after 'clean', insert
'to make provision conferring powers in relation to trolleys abandoned on land in the open air,'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment opened the Second Reading debate, he said that he hoped that we would have an instructive time in Committee. I can honestly say that we did. It is a matter of some satisfaction to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Opposition parties have welcomed virtually every aspect of the Bill. It is in line with the widespread support that it has received outside the House. There is no dispute that it delivers a series of major measures to further the protection of our environment, and its enhancement. We welcome the constructive approach that has sprung from that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State happily conceded that the Bill does not do all things to all environmental problems. It never could, and we all understand why. It is fantasy to suggest that we can legislate away problems such as the greenhouse effect overnight.
Let me remind the House of some of what the Bill accomplishes. It provides a far-reaching system of controlling major industrial pollution. Integrated pollution control puts this country in the forefront of pollution control in Europe. It completely overhauls and considerably toughens our national system of waste disposal and gives an important boost to recycling at the same time. It introduces radical measures for tackling what for many people is one of the most serious environmental issues—the litter that disfigures our towns and cities.
It provides brand new controls to deal with the environmental effects of genetically modified organisms. It lays the foundations for greatly improved delivery of nature and countryside conservation at all levels. That has always been the one contentious part of the Bill. We remain convinced that reform of the Nature Conservancy Council is required and that our proposals will be wholly

beneficial to conservation. That view is strengthened by Lord Carver's report. I promise the House that our response to that report will be positive and sympathetic.
On top of all that, the Bill provides for higher penalties and tougher enforcement of them for polluters across the board. It strengthens the role and powers of local authorities in dealing with local environmental issues. It provides for greatly improved public access to environmental information and includes a battery of further environmental measures, from powers to deal with imports of waste to further controls over dumping at sea.
The Bill is in the best shape to be sent on its way to the other place. It marks a milestone on the path to a better environment in Britain, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I agree with the Minister that we had a constructive time in Committee. We spent a good number of hours debating the Bill in Committee and on Report during the past few days. Many amendments have been tabled. Many were tabled by Conservative Members and in particular by the Government. That says something about the way in which the Bill was originally drafted.
We welcome the fact the Government have for once taken on board some of the suggestions that we have made in the spirit of constructive opposition. It is a somewhat unusual experience that Ministers occasionally accept Opposition amendments. Indeed, even this evening amendments have been proposed by the Government which were the result of promises made to us in Committee in recognition of the validity of the points that we have made. That is somewhat unusual for the Government, and we welcome it.
Most Committee members and most hon. Members who have taken an interest tonight feel that they have been able to make a minor, but possibly significant, contribution to the Bill. A significant contribution was made by the Government's acceptance of the need for a register of contaminated land. I am sure that that is particularly welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) whose Select Committee has done a great deal of work on that matter.
There are still glaring gaps in the Bill. The Minister said that environmental problems could not be solved overnight, but in Committee we were disappointed that the Government did not accept some of our suggestions for a more integrated policy between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy and between the Department and the Department of Transport. We understand the internal difficulties that exist and, as a result, we look forward with keen interest to the White Paper that will follow the Bill to see who will win and what Department will win.
We still have some reservations about the Bill. We shall watch carefully to see what happens to part VII and the amendments that may be forced on the Government in another place to make more sense of their proposals. We still have many reservations about the resource implications of the Bill. Promises have been given about resources for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, but local authorities have been given a wide range of extra responsibilities and duties without adequate back-up, which will cause problems in the future.
Obviously we shall not vote against Third Reading, just as we did not vote against Second Reading. Although we


are pleased that there has been some progress and some constructive amendments have been accepted, we still think that the Government have wasted a valuable opportunity and could have achieved far more.
The Bill has a grand title and the Government had the chance to match the image promoted by that title with some amendments. We welcome the Bill so far as it goes, but we hope that it will be significantly strengthened in another place. If that happens, we shall give the Bill all the support we can during its remaining stages.

Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my hon. Friends on a tour de force, an enormous piece of work. I have studied their deliberations with great interest and their work has been magnificent. I am particularly pleased to see, at last, a measure to control straw and stubble burning on the statute book, something for which I have fought for many years. However, a small but pertinent matter has not been attended to in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that I tabled some amendments at a late hour yesterday, which appear on the Order Paper as starred amendments—understandably, in those circumstances, they were not called. I tabled those amendments late because the national chairman and committee of the Bird Scarers Anti-Nuisance Group yesterday met with officials of the Department of the Environment and I felt that it would have been discourteous to have tabled those amendments prior to that meeting.
The control of noise in the countryside is a matter of great concern to many people. Audible bird scaring has been the subject of discussion by the Department for more than two years. It is a source of sadness to me that the same arguments have been rehearsed again and again. The Department has now produced two draft codes of practice for the use of audible bird scarers, but the measures that we have sought for more than two years are still not included in those drafts.
The amendments I tabled have not been discussed, but there will be an opportunity to address that small but important matter in another place. I hope that the Miinster will study the amendments to see if he can assist the other place to ensure that the matter receives the attention that many people believe it deserves.

Mr. Pike: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) in opening the Third Reading debate for the Opposition. I welcome her comments about contaminated land and about the direction in which the Government have moved on that issue.
In the five years that I have served on the Select Committee on the Environment, I have seen the tremendous role served by Select Committees, conducted in a non-political way, in spurring and encouraging the Government to move on many issues. The Select Committee on the Environment has always tried to reach consensus decisions without dividing which has meant give and take on both sides. The Government have responded positively on many issues to recommendations from the Committee, some of which are covered by the Bill.
I agree with many of the Minister's comments and believe that the Bill has been conducted well throughout. I has been encouraging that the Government have been prepared to listen to debate and respond to positive contributions from wherever they came in Committee. The Minister highlighted many issues covered by the Bill. He did not cover them all, but I make no criticism because it was impossible for him to do so in the time allowed.
However, although many issues in the Bill were steps in the right direction, we now need to take a stride to ensure not only that when the Bill has passed through the other House and becomes an Act its provisions are enforced, but to build on that base. Other issues are not covered by the Bill. We look forward to the Government coming forward with their White Paper, and further legislation. The next major Bill on environmental protection and enhancement may be introduced by a Labour Government who will tackle the problem positively.
These issues are of worldwide signficance and are growing in importance in the public's eyes. It is right for Parliament to address the problems positively and it is important for us to play a major role in dealing with them on a worldwide basis because we must ensure that we protect the earth, not only for the people living on it now, but for future generations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is no doubt that this is a wide-ranging and welcome Bill. It ranges from the widely understood plague of litter to the sophisticated scientific study of genetically modified organisms. There are no two more extreme poles of environmental concern. I willingly concede that it marks the Government's conversion to green interests, which is welcome. I understand that that has been strongly advocated by the Ministers in charge of the Bill, which is also welcome.
There is still some doubt about whether we have a Government with a green philosophy. We are a long way from seeing that. Perhaps the proper description is that we have a Government who are green in parts, but not yet right through. Environmental improvement in the Government is welcome, but an environmentally sound Government is yet some way removed.
The best symbol that I could find, having followed, albeit remotely, the processes of the Committee and the questions and answers that were subsequently tabled, is the exchange that has taken place several times, most recently the other day, about the Government's use of recycled paper in the Department of the Environment. That is slightly inaccurate. The Government use paper produced from offcuts in timber yards, but not paper recycled from paper used before. They have gone some way down the road, but have not yet become truly environmentalist. I hope that we shall continue much further and faster than in the past. In the 1970s we legislated against pollution. Much of that legislation was never backed up by secondary legislation. At the beginning of the 1990s, I hope that we shall have a significant Bill on the statute book. But the real proof of whether the Government are green will come when environmental matters become as dominant in their thinking as Treasury matters. I await that day with interest.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome a great deal in the legislation, and I enjoyed the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
Throughout our debates there has been an undercurrent, created by two missing ingredients. First, we needed a clear statement from the Government that they would make available the necessary resources. Secondly, we do not know what the White Paper will contain. That leaves me with the worry that, although a large number of new duties have rightly been placed on local authorities, the Government have not given them the proper resources to carry out their work. Through the poll tax, the Government are pressurising local authorities to spend less, and it is impossible for them to carry out their duties under the Bill without incurring extra expenditure. Most local authorities are not wasting money on other areas from which resources could be transferred.
It is appalling that the Minister announced on Monday that the White Paper was being prepared to present to the Tory party conference at the beginning of October. That is a misuse of public money, and it is bad for the protection of the environment. We were first promised the White Paper for the summer—

Mr. Trippier: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. I said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the Conservative party conference in Blackpool last year that a White Paper would be published before the next conference.

Mr. Bennett: The Minister said on Monday that the White Paper would be presented for the Conservative party conference—

Mr. Trippier: Before then.

Mr. Bennett: If it comes in the summer, I will take back everything I have said, but I suspect that the date will be closer to October. By then it will be too late to include its contents in the legislative programme.
So much has been left out of the Bill, just because we are told to wait for the White Paper. If the White Paper comes out in the summer and the legislation is included in the next Session of Parliament, well and good. But I suspect that it will not appear until the party conference. Then there will he no legislation next year, and the White Paper will merely become a contribution to the Tory party manifesto.
That is appalling, because it means using Government resources to prepare and carry out policy reviews for the Tory party—and because it means delaying action on these issues. We need the White Paper in June or July and legislation in October so that we can start to protect the environment as soon as possible.
As far as the legislation goes, I welcome it, but I still have the two major reservations that I have described.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

QUALIFYING CONDITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out line 27 and insert—
(c) in subsection (8), for the words "or (3)(a) above, or in both," there shall be substituted the word "above".

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Paul Flynn: These amendments are reasonable, benign and moderate, and, as an Opposition who are also reasonable, benign and moderate, we shall not oppose them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

GUARANTEED MINIMUM PENSIONS: ABOLITION OF DOUBLE INDEXATION FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 5, line 8, leave out from "be" to "and" in line 10 and insert
taken to be one half of the rate of the deceased spouse's guaranteed minimum pension at that time".

Mr. Ryder: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 13. leave out from beginning to "of" in line 14 and insert
subject to any directions under section 59A below (whether made before or after the coming into force of this subsection), be accordingly reduced under that subsection by an amount equal to the rate, as determined under paragraph (b) above".

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 10

RESTRICTION ON ELECTION THAT REGULATIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO PERSONS WHOSE SERVICE HAS TERMINATED

Lords amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 6, after "employment" insert "or office".

Mr. Ryder: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He described the Bill as reasonable, benign and moderate, and that is also an ample description of the two of us.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Train Services (Bromley)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Roger Sims: My constituency could well be described as commuter country. I have nine railway stations in my constituency or on the periphery from which local residents travel to and from central London daily to work and also for shopping and visits to the theatre, and so on. They do so mostly along the lines from Orpington via Chislehurst to London Bridge and Charing Cross or via Bickley to Victoria. I travel daily on the route, in my case from Petts Wood. Later in the month I shall do so in a little less comfort and more slowly because British Rail has decided that services which hitherto ran fast from Petts Wood to London Bridge will no longer stop at Petts Wood. That will reduce the long distance service time by two or three minutes, but it will increase the journey time from Petts Wood from about 20 minutes to 30 minutes.
Most of my constituents use the stations along the main suburban line. The exception is the small branch or spur line from Grove Park to Sundridge Park and Bromley North. At one time there was a regular service on that line to London Bridge and Charing Cross, but it has been gradually reduced until there are just a few through trains in the peak hours. Otherwise, Bromley North and Grove Park are connected by a shuttle service.
In 1986 British Rail attempted to cut out the through service. There was strong local resistance, led particularly by a local organisation, the Bromley North and Sundridge Park Association of Rail Travellers, otherwise known as Bronspart, and at that time British Rail relented. Five years ago there were five through trains in the morning and in the evening. A year ago there were three through trains at less attractive times in the morning rush hour and three in the evening rush hour. Apart from that, there was simply the shuttle service which ceases at about 10 o'clock at night and at about 7 o'clock on Saturday evenings. There is no Sunday service at all.
Last summer, British Rail announced the intended withdrawal of the through service by reducing in October the three morning and three evening peak services to two trains. There was a further reduction from two to one this month, as shown in the new timetable, and in October this year the plan is for a complete withdrawal of the through service. Only a shuttle will then be available at peak times. I have said that British Rail announced its proposals. There is, of course, a legal obligation on BR to consult only if it intends complete withdrawal. In this case it was a gradual withdrawal and the legal obligation may well not apply. However, the House may feel that there is surely a moral obligation on British Rail to consult.
Mr. Harrison Mee, the manager of Network SouthEast, attended a Bronspart meeting on 7 June and quite incidentally told the meeting of his plans. A few days later the London borough of Bromley was told. Initially, people were given the impression that these were simply proposals, but it was quite obvious that the matter had already been decided and a letter to me was couched in those terms. British Rail also claimed that public meetings had been held, but later admitted that the only meeting was the Bronspart one, to which I have referred, at which 30 people were present.
In subsequent correspondence, BR spoke of the possibility of further meetings, and told the council that its representatives would be willing to attend. They did not do so, and a meeting held by Bronspart on 18 October last year, which I chaired, was notable for the complete absence of any representatives from BR, as they refused to attend.
The manner in which BR has let its plans be known has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. As a result of the withdrawal of the service, some 1,700 season ticket holders will suffer a much poorer service, assuming that they continue to use it. According to BR figures, some 1,200 people use the through trains in the morning. From October, they will have to use the shuttle and, at Grove Park station, cross the bridge—about 300 or 400 people will go in each shuttle at the 8 o'clock peak—to wait on the station, much of which is open and most uncongenial on wet and windy mornings, for the mainline train. By the time it reaches the station, it will almost certainly be full. Passengers will find that the length of their journey both to and from town has been lengthened by up to 20 minutes, or possibly even half an hour in the evenings, particularly if the mainline trains are late and the shuttle has left. These passengers—BR likes to call them customers—are people who pay the full fare, and many have chosen to live near Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations because of the train service that BR now proposes to withdraw.
The local people believe that the line makes a profit, but as BR will not issue profit and loss figures, we do not know. The figures that it produces show that reducing this service will produce savings. That is surely self-evident, and on that principle BR could go on withdrawing more services and making more savings. BR is in receipt of a public service grant. In 1988, in respect of this, the Secretary of State required BR
to provide a public service which is comparable generally with that provided by the Board at present.
BR shields behind the word "generally", but it is obvious that passengers on the line will not enjoy a service comparable with that which they had in 1988.
One of the claims that BR has made is that the withdrawal will enable stock to be transferred to other routes, but there are doubts that this has been done, or even that there is capacity on the other routes to do so.
The reaction to these proposals was hardly surprising. A large number of letters came to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), whose constituents also use this station, and who hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had letters from passengers, from the residents association and from Bronspart, and I was recently presented with a petition that has over 1,000 signatures. Alas, it is couched in terms that do not enable me formally to present it as a petition to Parliament, but it contains not only more than 1,000 names, but space for comments, and many of the signatories have taken advantage of that, and have not minced their words. I have already referred to the well-attended public meeting last October, at which my hon. Friend and I were present, although BR was not, and where strong views were expressed.
The London borough of Bromley has made representations to BR and had a meeting with officials, whom it found most unforthcoming. The only response was to invite the council to provide a capital injection of £4


million—a rather unrealistic approach. I understand that the London Regional Passengers Committee has discussed this matter and is making representations to BR.
There is a real suspicion in the constituencies that British Rail is trying to run down the services on the line so that usage will steadily decrease, when it can argue that there is a case for closing the line. British Rail would then develop the station site. Those suspicions were strengthened by the fact that British Rail suggested to officials of the London borough of Bromley that, following the closure of the through line and the platform which serves it, the council might be interested in part of the station area for an office development and car park.
The possible shadow of closure was lifted with the proposal to extend the docklands light railway to Bromley North, but recently we have been told that that extension is not to proceed. Doubts about the future of the station and the line remain.
I want Network SouthEast to reconsider its proposals. It seems deaf to pleas from its customers, from passenger organisations, from Bromley council and from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. That is why I have chosen to raise the issue in the House and to give my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity of hearing my case and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. I am grateful to the Minister for his presence, especially as I appreciate that there are many other matters occupying his time at present. I know that when he responds he will say that the day-to-day running of British Rail is a matter for it and not for him. I ask him, however, to consider carefully my case and to tell Network SouthEast to think again. It has a duty to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, who are its customers. It has a duty also, I suggest, to make the best use of its assets. Far from reducing the services on the Bromley North line, it should be developing them. There is a formidable case for doing so. In the past three years both passenger numbers and receipts on the line have increased.
Bromley North station is close to the new shopping development in Bromley town centre, as well as providing easy access to the courts and the fine Churchill theatre. Bromley North is one of the few stations in the area that are completely at street level. That is a great attraction to the elderly and the disabled. They can board a train at Bromley North and go to Charing Cross, which again is at street level. London Bridge and Waterloo have ramps.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Network SouthEast that the other station, Bromley South, is heavily used. It will have to carry increased traffic with the opening of the Channel tunnel, wherever the link is finally established. Network SouthEast should be offering Bromley North as an attractive and comfortable alternative.
As a marketing man, I would advise Network SouthEast that it has in the Bromley North line a product which it should be marketing vigorously and not phasing out of use. I hope that on these grounds, and especially in the interests of my constituents, British Rail will think again, even at this late stage. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to urge this upon it in the strongest possible terms.

Sir John Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for allowing me a few moments to support the convincing case which he has made for the Bromley North line and to reinforce his plea for the retention of through trains on a much-needed and widely used commuter service to London.
I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that throughout my 25 years in the House there has always been a significant level of dissatisfaction with the service provided by British Rail for this part of my constituency, together with a lurking fear that the Bromley North line would sooner or later be closed altogether. There is no doubt that, compared with the gloss and glamour of Bromley South, Bromley North is seen as a sort of Cinderella station. In recent months, the dissatisfaction with it has become markedly worse. At the same time there has been a corresponding increase in the fears about closure. In other words, the rumble of discontent has become a roar of disapproval.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said, a number of my constituents now suspect that British Rail has embarked on a cynical exercise in which it will allow the Bromley North service to run down to such an extent that the number of passengers using it will decline to a level at which the arguments for closure can finally be clinched. It is obvious that with through trains withdrawn, the alternative of changing at Grove Park via a footbridge on to already overcrowded trains presents very real difficulty, especially for the elderly and disabled, and is a guarantee that passenger figures from Bromley North will inevitably show a decline in the months ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide some reassurance tonight about the retention of Bromley North station and the survival of the Bromley North line.
I wish to put a final point to my hon. Friend. Unlike many other parts of Greater London, Bromley has no underground railway services. It is, therefore, dependent on a surface railway in a way in which many other London boroughs are not. That, coupled with the still uncertain impact of the Channel tunnel services on the Bromley South route, make it vital that the future of the Bromley North service be safeguarded and guaranteed. I hope that my hon. Friend can tonight provide such undertakings for the House and for my constituents.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) began by describing his constituency as a commuters' constituency. If I may, I shall describe him as a commuters' friend. He has assiduously represented his constituents over the years. When I was researching for the debate, I discovered that it was almost six years ago to the day that he raised another Adjournment debate on the same subject. That debate took place at 3.2 am, so I consider myself lucky that history has not repeated itself.
Many matters have changed since then, and my speech will, in many respects, be dissimilar to the one given by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Then, the' picture was of a railway whose numbers were declining Today, the picture is of a railway whose numbers are increasing. Much of the logic has changed with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, who is moderate in all that he says and who considers his words carefully, said in that previous debate:
It is obviously sensible that British Rail should review its timetables from time to time to take account of changes in travel patterns and demand."—[Official Report, 30 April 1984; Vol. 59, c. 166.]
It is just such a process that has been under way.
In the debate six years ago, my hon. Friend the then Minister referred to a public service obligation grant to British Rail of £855 million. He spoke of a reduction in the number of train miles being run in the south-east of 2 per cent., and of a decline over four years in peak commuting on the southern region into central London of more than 12 per cent. The contrast between then and now is stark.
Between 1984 and 1988 demand for Network SouthEast services rose by 26 per cent., so that in 1988–89 nearly 500,000 commuters were using NSE each day, representing 41 per cent. of all central London commuters. The increased revenue that that has created, together with improvements in productivity, has enabled BR to reduce its call on the taxpayer since 1984 by almost 50 per cent.
As my hon. Friends know, at the same time investment has risen dramatically. Over the next three years NSE plans to invest some £1·2 billion, mainly on new rolling stock both to replace existing stock and to cater for areas of particular growth. In the short term, NSE is seeking to match its services as closely as possible to demand by adjusting train formations and making alterations to the timetable. From 14 May, the total number of train miles operated by NSE will increase by 2 per cent. but changes to the timetable are never universally welcomed and that is, in part, the subject of tonight's debate.
It is right that British Rail's customers should be able to have a say when alterations to the services that they use are proposed. I am distressed to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst that the consultation has not taken place in the way that he would have wished. But I hope that I can reassure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), who raised the point in particular, that the concerns of their constituents about ceasing services to Bromley North are unfounded and that it will continue to play a part in BR's plans for south-east London.
I obviously must confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said: as a general rule Ministers do not like to become involved in operational matters. Few subjects are as complicated as railway planning and we believe that it should be left to the experts, but I do know that the approaches to London from the south are extremely congested and adjustments to services are made only after careful thought. Anyone who has stood at the end of the platforms at London Bridge in the morning rush hour, as I have, and observed the number of trains going through there will know that trains are almost literally fighting for space.
The decision to remove direct services from Bromley North has not been taken lightly and BR is well aware that some inconvenience may result. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friends' constituents because they will be inconvenienced, but BR has an equal responsibility to its passengers using the other lines into Charing Cross and

Cannon Street, most notably the north Kent lines via Dartford. My hon. Friends will know that those commuters also have formidable champions in the House.
I am well aware that conditions have become intolerable for many commuters. British Rail recognises that the rolling stock in use is getting towards the end of its useful life and a major investment programme is planned over the next few years. To demonstrate the severity of the problem, in the 1988 annual passenger count, the last for which we have complete data, 16 trains arrived at London Bridge between 8 am and 9 am from Dartford or stations further in those trains were carrying more than 17,500 passengers, meaning that nearly 3,000 were travelling in excess of the agreed load factor standard which allows for 10 per cent. standing on journeys of less than 20 minutes.
British Rail needs to cope with that sort of demand every working day and for the time being that means allocating the resources available to it as carefully as it possibly can. Difficult choices have to be made, which will inevitably generate dissatisfaction from some and relief from many more. Sadly, we never seem to hear from the passengers whose journeys are improved.
As I have said, the removal of through trains will result in some inconvenience for passengers using Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations, as it will necessitate changing at Grove Park. But, as I have tried to explain, BR must rightly consider the needs of all its customers using the Kent link services and balance those needs. It will be of small consolation to my hon. Friends, but the policy of reallocating rolling stock from the Bromley North line has already brought relief to the services in north Kent.
The removal of the 7.22 am through service from Bromley North to Charing Cross last October released a train path which enabled Network SouthEast to relieve overcrowding on three heavily loaded trains on the Dartford lines. But by adding an extra shuttle from Bromley North and providing greater capacity on the corresponding Charing Cross service from Orpington, that adjustment was carried out with the minimum of disruption for Bromley North passengers. Similar adjustments will be made in the new timetable to ensure that the removal of the 8.45 am through service will cause Bromley North passengers the least inconvenience possible.
The other concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is for the long-term future of the Bromley North line. It is perhaps not at all surprising, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne said, that the gradual withdrawal of through services has been interpreted as signalling the line's inevitable closure in the longer term. "Closure by stealth" is the expression that is used. I can say now that that is not BR's intention at all. On the contrary, it is simply looking at ways of making the line as efficient as possible in both operational and commercial terms. The majority of Bromley North's through services were not as heavily used as other services into London and it made sense to give priority to the more heavily used mainline trains. But in so doing, BR is ensuring that Bromley North will continue to be a viable, more cost-effective area of operation.
The shuttle service will be more reliable and more frequent. From October BR intends to increase the capacity of the shuttle train from two to four cars. As a result of the move to a shuttle-only service, the costs of running the line will be reduced—of course my hon. Friend


the Member for Chislehurst was right about that—which British Rail says argues in favour of retaining the line and not closing it. The more that it makes it efficient and viable, the more certain it is that it will remain in operation.
A further indication of British Rail's long-term plans for the line can he seen in its strategy of introducing the Networker trains over the next few years. These brand new high-capacity trains, many of which will run on the Dartford line in 12-car formation, will replace the Kent link fleet and will be British Rail's best weapon yet in its continuing efforts to improve conditions for its customers. British Rail intends to order one four-car Networker unit for use on the shuttle service, so that will benefit from the re-equipment of the rolling stock, and there is a specific provision for new rolling stock for that line. The decision to earmark reinvestment for that line in that way would seem to offer the clearest possible evidence that British Rail has no intention of closing the line.
It is vital that British Rail should discharge its responsibilities for all its customers in the south-east subsector of Network SouthEast. That means—I am afraid to say—weighing up the needs of all passengers who wish to travel on the congested lines into London. Whatever shortcomings there may have been in the meetings that my hon. Friends arranged and chaired, I am told that British Rail has had regular contacts over recent years with the groups representing passengers who use

Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations. Following criticisms made six years ago of its efforts, BR has been trying to keep its customers informed of the plans for the line.
The proposal to withdraw the through services will certainly not be welcomed with open arms, but I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will accept that, by improving the shuttle service and improving conditions on trains serving Grove Park, British Rail has not forgotten the needs of Bromley North commuters. British Rail has made great efforts to improve the robustness of all its services and in so doing it insists that the future of the Bromley North line has been secured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst deployed his case formidably as he always does. My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne managed to give the essence of the case in a few words. Of course, I shall ask that British Rail reads both speeches made by my hon. Friends and considers carefully the points that have been made.
I hope that if I have not been able to offer much consolation, at least what I have had to say about the long-term future of the Bromley North line may have given some reassurance to my hon. Friends and. most importantly, to their constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.